sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
My application is that if you allow discrimination against anyone then you allow discrimination against everyone.
So would your application of "If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all" then allow as much tolerance for one as it would for another when you strongly disagree with one (think: KKK wedding event) and not the other (think: gay wedding event)?
If not, why not?
I don't think I've twisted a word of what you asserted. I think you just don't like the end it leads to.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
She was the one who suddenly decided to tell someone that she didn't want to serve them because of what they are.
That's not the story I read. It was not what they are that caused her refusal of service but, rather, the event they wanted her to service. She was already selling flowers to the gay customer. It was the wedding ceremony she objected to servicing.
A false equivalence as well as an unlikely scenario. The people getting married may be KKK members but it is not the KKK organization getting married. If it was some KKK event I think people would have the right to refuse it.
I haven't asserted an equivalence. I asked a question, and your response dodges that question.
A florist may sell to individuals she knows to be members of the KKK. But if those same members want her to service their wedding as a KKK event then what? Should the florist be forced under the law to service the event no matter how much it hurts her moral (read: religious) conscience?
If anything we need laws to protect society FROM religion, not protect religion from individuals in society!
I agree with that sentiment, but for now religion and religious taboos are a part of human society. This takes time, and I'm not convinced that burning the florist's business at the stake is necessary.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Marvin Shilmer, "If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all., Right?"
Based on that logic what happens to a gay person when he/she is refused to buy food at a supermarket.
It's not "my logic". It's Simon's words. Take it up with him.
My point is that social change takes time, and imposing harsh financial penalties onto an unsuspecting business person holding historically understandable personal religious views seems as questionable as the discriminatory behavior everyone is up in arms about.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
How can anyone not be aware that discrimination is wrong?
Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination. In the case of the florist gal it appears to me the woman was in business and was not under an impression that wedding ceremonies for gays was protected. In terms of selling flowers she was willing to sell flowers to anyone, including gays.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Again, should people be allowed to have "whites only" restaurants? It's their restaurant after all.
"White only" restaurants are all over the place in the United States, and so are "black only". They call them "private clubs" in order to get around laws.
Why was it necessary to impose her opinions on other people's lives?
I don't think the florist gal was imposing her opinion on anyone. She was having an opinion imposed on her, one she apparently did not expect and did not understand as a legal requirement.
A business to business arrangement is obviously different and a business can chose not to to business with another for whatever reason it wants. A business is not a protected class.
She could refuse to sell flowers to the KKK...
So the florist gal could refuse to sell flowers to a pair of KKK members who want their marriage event performed in full KKK regalia and pomp because to do so would be contrary to her personal religious conscience, but the same florist could not refuse sell flowers to a pair of gays for their marriage event because to do so would be contrary to her personal religious conscience?
If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all., Right?
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
If a town has 100 stores, and there are 2 gay people living there. If 95 of those stores decide to refuse them service, they are now being punished by only having 5 stores to buy from.
Moving forward I think resolution is in making it clear to business persons whatever are the rules they must abide by. It sounds to me like the florist gal was not clear that under the law as a business owner she was required to provide a service contrary to her conscience. If this is the case then make it clear and provide folks a given period of time to get their affairs in order. Then the choice is stay in business, sell your business or close it down.
I guess from now on the florist gal will have to supply floral arrangements to the KKK Grand Event whether she wants to do it or not.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
As for the woman whose business is suffering, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy or empathy for her.
I'm neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic for this particular business owner. I'm more concerned about the question of personal liberty. If there's a store owner who wants to refuse service to someone then let them do so and let customers decide if they want to do business with such a person.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
You are looking at it the wrong way round.
Why?
Why is this woman's personal choice any less important than the personal choice of her customer? I don't see anything about her imposing her personal choice on an employee, or anyone else. She didn't attempt to interfere with the choice of the couple to get married, so why should anyone interfere with her choice about who she wants to provide her personal services to?
Sometimes an example is needed and people need some punishment if they commit a crime.
I don't think what this woman did was criminal. She was sued in civil court.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Replace gay couple with:
Hispanic couple
Fat couple
Jewish couple
Handicapped couple
African-American couple
Atheist couple
Okay. I replaced it. I have this:
Person A does not want to provide her services to Person B.
Label each of these as you want, the shop owner was not demanding anything of an employee, it is her individual liberty and the individual liberty of the couple. Why is this not best settled by consumer choice? The individual shop owner was not trying to interfere with the business of the couple. Why should they interfere with her business?
It seems we can have a Ms. [name your race/nationality/gender] Character Contest but we can't let a shop owner kill their own business by refusing service as an individual liberty. I say let the shop owner go about his or her business and let customers decide if they want to frequent the establishment. Or, are we trying to kill this woman's business in order to teach society a lesson? It's a bit paternalistic to me.
ajwrb now has a facebook page.
please follow along:.
https://www.facebook.com/ajwrb.
... but recently in internal correspondence, they've staunchly reiterated their stance...
What is the internal correspondence you speak of?
