The answer is NO. Nobody should be forced to sell hate messages. And anti-discrimination laws don't require it. You don't have to print hate messages for Westboro church. You don't have to print Aryan Nation bigotry. This is nothing but a lie being perpetrated by Christians who don't want to comply with actual anti-discrimination laws.
By conflating equal treatment for all with being forced to do something hateful (or possibly even illegal), they confuse the issue. They want to confuse the issue, because what they are really against is equality for all.
How typical. The perpetrator of hatred tries to make it sound as if the victims of his hatred are the ones engaging in hateful behavior. And to top it off, he accuses THEM of projecting their supposed hatfulness on the perpetrator.
The Supreme Court has determined that Westboro's "vile" message is protected speech under the First Amendment.
"In the end, the Supreme Court sided with the church. It held, as most Court-watchers expected it to and as the ACLU argued it should, that offensive or hateful speech is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment when it addresses a subject of public concern, as it did here. Although “God Hates Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” and other messages from the church’s picket signs are vile, they communicate that group’s moral and political viewpoint. The members of the church have a right to express their views, as we all do."
Given that "God hates fags" is protected speech, how can a business open to the public legally refuse service?
Also, let's say that the the print shop had previously sold material to Westboro, could they later refuse service based on the event at which those materials would be used? For example, printing "church bulletins" (if Westboro uses such) but then refusing to print the "God hates fags" placards.
ozzielionel: "Laws are better at preventing behavior than compelling behavior."
Whether or not that's true, it's not really behavior that the Big Gay leftists are trying to compel (*), but rather thoughts and attitudes.
Normal people find homosexual behavior -- including the stereotypically "gay" behaviors that aren't, strictly speaking, sexual, but rather serve as social queues -- to be, at best, off-putting, and more commonly, repulsive (**). At the same time, normal people don't really give, and don't *want* to give, homosexual behavior (including the, strictly speaking, non-sexual social-queueing behaviors) much thought.
Normal people *know* that there are "gays" in the world -- and they'd prefer to be allowed to pretend that they don't know. And *that* is what the shrieking is all about -- "How DARE! you be repulsed when I force you to think about what I do with my dick and/or bodily orifices"
(*) Not yet! though if the left is not soundly smacked-down on this, that will come. Give it about five years, ten max, on the current trajectory, and you and you and you will be compelled to "prove" that you are not "homophobic" by sucking cock.
(**) Hell! Even a lot of persons afflicted with homosexual attraction find many of those stereotypically "gay" behaviors that aren't, strictly speaking, sexual, but rather serve as social queues to be off-putting or even disgusting.
Name a case where someone was required to print a hate message like that (or some other message they strongly disagree with) against their will. Hint: baking a wedding cake doesn't qualify.
I strongly urge everyone following this conversation to take the hour or so it requires to read Owen Barfield's (a.k.a., "the Fourth Inkling") short novel (only 65 pages) Night Operation. It is a terribly, even tragically, timely dystopia about a world in which everyone is required to engage in various repulsive activities, and all human interaction is reduced to the grossest obscenities. (But not to worry, it has an optimistic ending.)
Extremely good book, and guaranteed to be of great interest to anyone who enjoys the works of Tolkien, Lewis, and Charles Williams. Available on Amazon for as little as 9 dollars.
For me, the most interesting issue is summarized as:
"For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved."
Where there is a conflict between civil rights and first amendment rights, civil rights have priority. In relation to protected classes, religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press are limited by "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation."
One complication is deciding what is a "public accommodation." The article differentiates a restaurant and a night club stating the first on is, and the second one isn't.
How about, "Elanor's Wedding Flowers and Night Club?"
toddes: "Given that "God hates fags" is protected speech, how can a business open to the public legally refuse service?"
Ah! but logical consistency has no place in anything leftists do or say; never has, never will.
This isn't about arriving at a logically consistent position on where the limits of free speech, if any, may lie. This is about the leftists using "gays" as willing tools in their never-ending battle (they've been at it for a couple of centuries now) to snuff out Christianity.
Here's where I part company with you, Ilion. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with any left/right divide in our culture, but rather with a God/Satan divide. Couldn't be clearer. Politics has absolutely no role here. Good Christians can be Democrats, Republicans, Monarchists, Fascists, Feudalists, Communitarians, Anarchists, Libertarians... whatever.
To me (who generally does not like "proof verses"), the definitive statement by Christ as to where "God stands vis a vis our economic squabbles" is Luke 12:13. (One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?") Couldn't be clearer. God is telling us, "Leave me out of your partisan political battles."
im-skeptical: Isn't it true that if a law is only applicable to one group of people that it is in fact discrimination? Whether the laws make an allowance or not, this is a double standard!!!
It's also interesting to note, freedom of religion was built into our constitution, not anti-discrimination. Discrimination was considered normal for our founding fathers, and for most of us, it still is today.
There is a reason why public restrooms still have a men and women signs. There is a reason why boys are not allowed in the Girl Scouts. There is a reason why churches should not be forced to hire an atheist as their pastor. There is a reason why a day care center has the right to discriminate by not hiring convicted child molesters to take care of their children. I could go on, the point is, certain types of discrimination is normal and healthy. To force people to contradict their conscience is not!
There is simply no logical way to say that laws restricting marriage to between a man and a woman are in any way discriminatory, and people who insist that they are are simply demonstrating their inability to reason coherently.
No one is allowed to marry a parent or sibling. The law applies equally to all. No discrimination. Everyone treated the same.
No one is allowed to marry a son or daughter. Again, the law treats everyone exactly the same. No discrimination.
No one (at least for now, and only in some states) is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. And yet again, everyone is treated exactly the same. No discrimination whatsoever.
The very definition of discrimination is to treat one group of people differently than another. Yet here we see the law being applied with complete and totally equality to all. Everyone is permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex (within the restrictions mentioned above), and everyone is prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex. How in the world can anyone be so obtuse as label that discrimination?!?
Examples of discrimination based on age, race and religion:
A law says I can't vote until I'm 18. Discrimination.
A law says a 19-year-old can't engage in consensual sex with a person under 18. Discrimination.
A law says I can't drink alcohol until I'm 21. Discrimination.
A government-related organization requires that I belong to their ethnic group in order to be a member. Discrimination.
A restaurant only offers a discount to patrons 55 and older. Discrimination.
A public university invites me to speak to students but I am not allowed to mention religion even though the work I do is directly related to religion. Discrimination.
Ah, so now we're splitting hairs, trying to show that there are cases of justifiable discrimination in order to slip hate-based discrimination into the mix, in the hope that nobody will be able to discern the difference. Yes, there certainly are examples of discrimination codified in law, for reasons of health, safety, privacy, or similar reasons that are generally accepted by society. They are well justified, and not based on hatred. If you want to then include hate-based discrimination among these, you are engaging in a kind of equivocation.
Laws against gay marriage don't exist for any of those acceptable reasons. The closest you can come to justifying them is to note that they adhere to a "traditional" definition of marriage. Right. Some kinds of hate-based discrimination are traditional, like racial discrimination. Yet society has progressed to the point that we recognize the fallacy of using "tradition" as a justification for that kind of hatred. So too, have we progressed with regard to hatred of gay people. Except that there are still many among us who have not progressed along with the rest of society.
OK, if you want to be hateful, you can come up with excuses all day long to justify that hatred. But reasonable people will still recognize your excuses for what they are.
I must disagree with you. Laws based on age are in no way discriminatory. They treat all people equally. For example, all persons under 18 cannot vote - not some persons under 18. Everyone is being treated equally. No discrimination. Same goes for your other age-related examples.
"I must disagree with you. Laws based on age are in no way discriminatory. They treat all people equally. For example, all persons under 18 cannot vote - not some persons under 18. Everyone is being treated equally. No discrimination. Same goes for your other age-related examples."
Yes, and excluding black people from voting is not discrimination, because you would be excluding all black people.
There may be a valid reason to discriminate by age, but it's still discrimination. Everyone is not being treated equally.
20 comments:
If the shop is in private hands then definitely no.
A private shop? Or a place open to the public?
I think the 'private shop' mantra is a silly notion if one is to,be open to the public.
The answer is NO. Nobody should be forced to sell hate messages. And anti-discrimination laws don't require it. You don't have to print hate messages for Westboro church. You don't have to print Aryan Nation bigotry. This is nothing but a lie being perpetrated by Christians who don't want to comply with actual anti-discrimination laws.
By conflating equal treatment for all with being forced to do something hateful (or possibly even illegal), they confuse the issue. They want to confuse the issue, because what they are really against is equality for all.
^ I-pretend-to-be-rationally-disinterested is playing that ol' game of Heads-I-win, Tails-you-lose, so beloved of "secularists"
... and, of course, he's "projecting", as he does so frequently.
How typical. The perpetrator of hatred tries to make it sound as if the victims of his hatred are the ones engaging in hateful behavior. And to top it off, he accuses THEM of projecting their supposed hatfulness on the perpetrator.
Laws are better at preventing behavior than compelling behavior.
Given the example of Westboro:
The Supreme Court has determined that Westboro's "vile" message is protected speech under the First Amendment.
"In the end, the Supreme Court sided with the church. It held, as most Court-watchers expected it to and as the ACLU argued it should, that offensive or hateful speech is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment when it addresses a subject of public concern, as it did here. Although “God Hates Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” and other messages from the church’s picket signs are vile, they communicate that group’s moral and political viewpoint. The members of the church have a right to express their views, as we all do."
https://acluva.org/7388/on-hate-speech-the-westboro-baptist-church-campuses-and-nazis-in-virginia/
Given that "God hates fags" is protected speech, how can a business open to the public legally refuse service?
Also, let's say that the the print shop had previously sold material to Westboro, could they later refuse service based on the event at which those materials would be used? For example, printing "church bulletins" (if Westboro uses such) but then refusing to print the "God hates fags" placards.
ozzielionel: "Laws are better at preventing behavior than compelling behavior."
Whether or not that's true, it's not really behavior that the Big Gay leftists are trying to compel (*), but rather thoughts and attitudes.
Normal people find homosexual behavior -- including the stereotypically "gay" behaviors that aren't, strictly speaking, sexual, but rather serve as social queues -- to be, at best, off-putting, and more commonly, repulsive (**). At the same time, normal people don't really give, and don't *want* to give, homosexual behavior (including the, strictly speaking, non-sexual social-queueing behaviors) much thought.
Normal people *know* that there are "gays" in the world -- and they'd prefer to be allowed to pretend that they don't know. And *that* is what the shrieking is all about -- "How DARE! you be repulsed when I force you to think about what I do with my dick and/or bodily orifices"
(*) Not yet! though if the left is not soundly smacked-down on this, that will come. Give it about five years, ten max, on the current trajectory, and you and you and you will be compelled to "prove" that you are not "homophobic" by sucking cock.
(**) Hell! Even a lot of persons afflicted with homosexual attraction find many of those stereotypically "gay" behaviors that aren't, strictly speaking, sexual, but rather serve as social queues to be off-putting or even disgusting.
toddes,
Name a case where someone was required to print a hate message like that (or some other message they strongly disagree with) against their will. Hint: baking a wedding cake doesn't qualify.
Re: Ilion's last posting.
I strongly urge everyone following this conversation to take the hour or so it requires to read Owen Barfield's (a.k.a., "the Fourth Inkling") short novel (only 65 pages) Night Operation. It is a terribly, even tragically, timely dystopia about a world in which everyone is required to engage in various repulsive activities, and all human interaction is reduced to the grossest obscenities. (But not to worry, it has an optimistic ending.)
Extremely good book, and guaranteed to be of great interest to anyone who enjoys the works of Tolkien, Lewis, and Charles Williams. Available on Amazon for as little as 9 dollars.
Jezu ufam tobie!
"Given that "God hates fags" is protected speech, how can a business open to the public legally refuse service?"
It may be best to let the lawyers explain it here:
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance
For me, the most interesting issue is summarized as:
"For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved."
Where there is a conflict between civil rights and first amendment rights, civil rights have priority. In relation to protected classes, religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press are limited by
"full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation."
One complication is deciding what is a "public accommodation." The article differentiates a restaurant and a night club stating the first on is, and the second one isn't.
How about, "Elanor's Wedding Flowers and Night Club?"
toddes: "Given that "God hates fags" is protected speech, how can a business open to the public legally refuse service?"
Ah! but logical consistency has no place in anything leftists do or say; never has, never will.
This isn't about arriving at a logically consistent position on where the limits of free speech, if any, may lie. This is about the leftists using "gays" as willing tools in their never-ending battle (they've been at it for a couple of centuries now) to snuff out Christianity.
Here's where I part company with you, Ilion. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with any left/right divide in our culture, but rather with a God/Satan divide. Couldn't be clearer. Politics has absolutely no role here. Good Christians can be Democrats, Republicans, Monarchists, Fascists, Feudalists, Communitarians, Anarchists, Libertarians... whatever.
To me (who generally does not like "proof verses"), the definitive statement by Christ as to where "God stands vis a vis our economic squabbles" is Luke 12:13. (One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?") Couldn't be clearer. God is telling us, "Leave me out of your partisan political battles."
im-skeptical:
Isn't it true that if a law is only applicable to one group of people that it is in fact discrimination? Whether the laws make an allowance or not, this is a double standard!!!
It's also interesting to note, freedom of religion was built into our constitution, not anti-discrimination. Discrimination was considered normal for our founding fathers, and for most of us, it still is today.
There is a reason why public restrooms still have a men and women signs. There is a reason why boys are not allowed in the Girl Scouts. There is a reason why churches should not be forced to hire an atheist as their pastor. There is a reason why a day care center has the right to discriminate by not hiring convicted child molesters to take care of their children. I could go on, the point is, certain types of discrimination is normal and healthy. To force people to contradict their conscience is not!
Quintessential,
You make very good points.
There is simply no logical way to say that laws restricting marriage to between a man and a woman are in any way discriminatory, and people who insist that they are are simply demonstrating their inability to reason coherently.
No one is allowed to marry a parent or sibling. The law applies equally to all. No discrimination. Everyone treated the same.
No one is allowed to marry a son or daughter. Again, the law treats everyone exactly the same. No discrimination.
No one (at least for now, and only in some states) is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. And yet again, everyone is treated exactly the same. No discrimination whatsoever.
The very definition of discrimination is to treat one group of people differently than another. Yet here we see the law being applied with complete and totally equality to all. Everyone is permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex (within the restrictions mentioned above), and everyone is prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex. How in the world can anyone be so obtuse as label that discrimination?!?
Jezu ufam tobie!
Examples of discrimination based on age, race and religion:
A law says I can't vote until I'm 18. Discrimination.
A law says a 19-year-old can't engage in consensual sex with a person under 18. Discrimination.
A law says I can't drink alcohol until I'm 21. Discrimination.
A government-related organization requires that I belong to their ethnic group in order to be a member. Discrimination.
A restaurant only offers a discount to patrons 55 and older. Discrimination.
A public university invites me to speak to students but I am not allowed to mention religion even though the work I do is directly related to religion. Discrimination.
Quintessential,
Ah, so now we're splitting hairs, trying to show that there are cases of justifiable discrimination in order to slip hate-based discrimination into the mix, in the hope that nobody will be able to discern the difference. Yes, there certainly are examples of discrimination codified in law, for reasons of health, safety, privacy, or similar reasons that are generally accepted by society. They are well justified, and not based on hatred. If you want to then include hate-based discrimination among these, you are engaging in a kind of equivocation.
Laws against gay marriage don't exist for any of those acceptable reasons. The closest you can come to justifying them is to note that they adhere to a "traditional" definition of marriage. Right. Some kinds of hate-based discrimination are traditional, like racial discrimination. Yet society has progressed to the point that we recognize the fallacy of using "tradition" as a justification for that kind of hatred. So too, have we progressed with regard to hatred of gay people. Except that there are still many among us who have not progressed along with the rest of society.
OK, if you want to be hateful, you can come up with excuses all day long to justify that hatred. But reasonable people will still recognize your excuses for what they are.
toddes,
I must disagree with you. Laws based on age are in no way discriminatory. They treat all people equally. For example, all persons under 18 cannot vote - not some persons under 18. Everyone is being treated equally. No discrimination. Same goes for your other age-related examples.
Jezu ufam tobie!
"I must disagree with you. Laws based on age are in no way discriminatory. They treat all people equally. For example, all persons under 18 cannot vote - not some persons under 18. Everyone is being treated equally. No discrimination. Same goes for your other age-related examples."
Yes, and excluding black people from voting is not discrimination, because you would be excluding all black people.
There may be a valid reason to discriminate by age, but it's still discrimination. Everyone is not being treated equally.
Post a Comment