ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st January 2017, 08:23 AM   #681
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,915
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
I think you are starting to justify different treatment according to existing legislation. Probably best to rely on making a moral case for why they are different.
I still haven't heard the moral case for preventing retail businesses from engaging in segregation.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 08:28 AM   #682
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,723
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
I think you are starting to justify different treatment according to existing legislation. Probably best to rely on making a moral case for why they are different.
I don't believe it's a question of "morals".
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 08:33 AM   #683
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,882
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I still haven't heard the moral case for preventing retail businesses from engaging in segregation.
What sort of segregation do you consider to be morally justifiable or at least neutral?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 08:34 AM   #684
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,915
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
What sort of segregation do you consider to be morally justifiable or at least neutral?
All segregation is immoral.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 08:35 AM   #685
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I like the cake on the right better.
'Cause it is a stolen design? Trump's style.............
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 08:51 AM   #686
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,243
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
All segregation is immoral.
Women's restrooms. Immoral. Heavyweight boxing. Immoral. Sororities. Immoral. Immigration laws. Immoral. Nightclub doormen. Immoral. Movie tickets. Immoral. Voting age. Immoral. Drinking age. Immoral. Handicapped parking. Immoral. First class airline seats. Immoral.

...

Dammit, now "immoral" doesn't sound like a real word anymore.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 09:08 AM   #687
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,915
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Women's restrooms. Immoral. Heavyweight boxing. Immoral. Sororities. Immoral. Immigration laws. Immoral. Nightclub doormen. Immoral. Movie tickets. Immoral. Voting age. Immoral. Drinking age. Immoral. Handicapped parking. Immoral. First class airline seats. Immoral.

...

Dammit, now "immoral" doesn't sound like a real word anymore.
You did list about 7 things that I do think are immoral. But that is my point. Morality seems like a stupid thing to base laws around.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 09:09 AM   #688
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,882
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Women's restrooms. Immoral. Heavyweight boxing. Immoral. Sororities. Immoral. Immigration laws. Immoral. Nightclub doormen. Immoral. Movie tickets. Immoral. Voting age. Immoral. Drinking age. Immoral. Handicapped parking. Immoral. First class airline seats. Immoral.

...

Dammit, now "immoral" doesn't sound like a real word anymore.
The way it's used in your post, it isn't real. But that's not how people normally understand it.

You see keeping young people out of bars to be the same as keeping black people out of bars?

We've been through the "retail" thing. It is agreed that "segregation", whereby a grocer hands some people one apple, while other people get two apples, is not immoral if it is a consequence of some people paying ten pence and others paying twenty pence. The same applies to different classes of passenger accommodation on planes and trains. Listing all this stuff is imbecility or misdirection.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 09:47 AM   #689
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I still haven't heard the moral case for preventing retail businesses from engaging in segregation.
[Pedantic nitpick]The businesses in question are not engaging in segregation. Discrimination and segregation are not the same thing.[/Pedantic nitpick]

[Not nearly so pedantic nitpick]The businesses in question are not retail businesses.[/Not nearly so pedantic nitpick]

As for the moral justification, it is that people should not be compelled to do something that they do not want to do, unless by refusing to do the thing they imperil someone else or create harm to society.

A band who objects to the politics of a particular president should not be compelled to play, with or without compensation, at his inauguration.

A cake baker who is asked to bake a cake for that inauguration may decline. Duff Goldman produced a cake for Barack Obama's inauguration, but he was under no obligation to produce one for Donald Trump's. If he had been asked, he could simply have said no.

Had he been a retail establishment, the case would be slightly murkier, morally. Some people assert that retail establishments are obliged to serve all members of the public who wish to purchase their goods. However, he is not a retail establishment. He produced a custom work of art, in the medium of flour and frosting, for a specific occasion. When that piece of art was copied for a different occasion he was quite rightly miffed at the copier. I doubt he had gone to the effort of copyrighting or otherwise protecting the rights to his art, so he probably has no legal redress, but on a moral level he has a valid complaint against the person who copied his art.

Legally, this moral concept has been incorporated into constitutional law. Under the concept of substantive due process, a person may not be compelled to do anything by the state unless the state has a compelling interest to force that person to do something, or prohibit them from doing something. For many things which the state would compel or prohibit, the state must simply show that they have an interest in it, and that there must be a rational basis. However, there are certain rights guaranteed in the constitution, including the right of free speech and free practice of religion. For rights specifically enumerated in the constitution, the state faces a burden of strict scrutiny to prove that it must prohibit or compel the activity, and that doing so is sufficiently important to the state to justify the abrogation of the constitutional rights of the person compelled or prohibited.

In the case of a cake baker asked to produce an original cake for a Presidential inauguration, the production of original artwork is an act of expression. Forcing someone to engage in an act of expression is a violation of his right of free speech. The state can only do it if they have a compelling interest. Also, the ceremony may incorporate religious aspects, as this one did. A person who has religious beliefs that are opposed to the ones present at the ceremony might claim a religious exemption, saying he did not want to produce artwork that will be used as part of a ceremony which violates his religion. Since there is no compelling interest in having a specific baker produce an inauguration cake, there is no way the strict scrutiny standard would be met.

If, on the other hand, there happened to be a retail store that had a ready made inauguration cake, or perhaps a catalog of standard designs that they would make upon receipt of an order, the situation might be considered different. Handing over goods for money is not generally considered an act of expression. Therefore the compulsion to do so is not part of a protected right under the constitution. The state only has to show a rational basis to compel retailers to serve customers they do not wish to serve.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 21st January 2017 at 09:50 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 10:03 AM   #690
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,338
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Hmmm....I must admit I didn't see that one coming.
You and me both. Maybe it's like a game of community rorschach, where people blurt the first random thought that enters their mind.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 10:07 AM   #691
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,338
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Speaking of baking:
It's Meredith McIver's fault.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 10:26 AM   #692
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,915
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Legally, this moral concept has been incorporated into constitutional law. Under the concept of substantive due process, a person may not be compelled to do anything by the state unless the state has a compelling interest to force that person to do something, or prohibit them from doing something.
I don't see the compelling interest in requiring businesses to sell to certain races.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 11:15 AM   #693
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't see the compelling interest in requiring businesses to sell to certain races.
Right. I actually was not reading your statement correctly. My long winded reply was actually better targeted toward others.

But basically, the idea is that in order to force a person to do something, the state has to have a legitimate interest in forcing that person to do something, and depending on what that thing is, the standard required to justify forcing them to do something may be higher.

When it comes to baking cakes for inaugurations or other ceremonies, I don't see how they could possibly justify the legal coercion.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 11:35 AM   #694
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
'Cause it is a stolen design? Trump's style.............
The cake on the right is more conservative, more aligned with the traditional values I like to see in a cake.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 11:47 AM   #695
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Speaking of baking:

http://i.imgur.com/SUFBVil.jpg
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a cake –*you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.*
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 01:13 PM   #696
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,819
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Speaking of baking:

http://i.imgur.com/SUFBVil.jpg
That's gotta stick in the hair's craw.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 01:18 PM   #697
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,882
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't see the compelling interest in requiring businesses to sell to certain races.
I see a compelling interest for the state to ensure that its citizens all enjoy the same rights regardless of the colour of their skin. If individuals would deny some of them these rights, then it is manifestly in the interest of the government to correct that situation.

Oceans of blood have been shed, and uncountable treasure has been expended to teach government that lesson in the USA. Has it not been learned yet?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 01:18 PM   #698
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,310
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
That's gotta stick in the hair's craw.
They specifically ordered a replica.

Quote:
She said that the order came in*while she was out of town, and that the client had brought in a photo of the cake from Obama’s inauguration asking her to re-create it.

“They came to us a couple of weeks ago, which is pretty last minute, and said ‘We have a photo that we would like to replicate,’ ” MacIsaac told The Washington Post by phone. Her bakery tried to encourage the client to use the photo as “inspiration,” as they do with many others, she said.

“They said, ‘Nope, they want this exact cake. It’s perfect.’ And we said, great,” MacIsaac said. Neither she nor her spokeswoman revealed who placed the order. The “Salute to Our Troops” ball was one of three official presidential inaugural balls held Friday and open by invitation only to members of the military, veterans, first responders and their families.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2017, 02:01 PM   #699
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,591
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post

What's funny is that it is definitely not an exact cake. The proportions are way off. Trump would never notice something like that, though.

I'm slightly disappointed that he didn't have it topped-offed with a diamond encrusted Mr. Potatohead™. That's his idea of class.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2017, 03:20 PM   #700
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,916
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
(From dictionary.com)
noun
1.
the sale of goods to ultimate consumers, usually in small quantities (opposed to wholesale ).

The baker, photographer, and florist are not selling goods. They are selling services.


(If the baker is providing an off the shelf product, or even a made to order product, then he is providing goods. However, if he is making a custom cake, he is providing the service of designing and producing a cake.)

Goods include custom goods, there is no nothing in the standard definitions of goods that excludes custom made items. Also retail photographers include wedding photographers.
http://www.diyphotography.net/photo-...g-look-basics/
Quote:
RETAIL photography is generally commissioned or purchased for the client’s own personal use (e.g., wedding photography, senior portraits, pet photography, fine art, etc.).
http://shutha.org/photo-genres#retail_genres
Quote:
Retail genres deal with the person on the street who needs a photographer to perform a service for him or her. Primarily this is in the service of capturing a record of significant achievements as an aid to memory. Because of this retail genres tend to focus in on major events in people's lives - "rights of passage" such as bar and bat mitzva, graduations, weddings, significant milestones in family life and even funerals.

When you look at the specific business usages of the word retail you will also find that it applies to goods and services.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...il-outlet.html
Quote:
retail outlet
A store that sells smaller quantities of products or services to the general public.

I'll add Humpty-Dumptyism to the denialism of economic harm that you use to justify your desire to re-start the allowing of group discrimination. We allowed it for about 190 years and have disallowed it do to the harms it causes for about 50 years.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2017, 03:36 PM   #701
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,916
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I still haven't heard the moral case for preventing retail businesses from engaging in segregation.
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
All segregation is immoral.
By allowing public businesses to discriminate against a group you limit the number of options for that group to get the goods or services, limiting choice drives up costs for the group. With limited options it also means that the discriminated against group will also, on average, incur more costs to get to where they can obtain the goods and services, again increasing their costs.

When a community gets all of the businesses to discriminate against the disliked group it becomes economically impractical for the disliked group to live in that community creating a segregated community.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2017, 04:00 PM   #702
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,679
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
Goods include custom goods, there is no nothing in the standard definitions of goods that excludes custom made items. Also retail photographers include wedding photographers.
http://www.diyphotography.net/photo-...g-look-basics/

http://shutha.org/photo-genres#retail_genres



When you look at the specific business usages of the word retail you will also find that it applies to goods and services.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...il-outlet.html



I'll add Humpty-Dumptyism to the denialism of economic harm that you use to justify your desire to re-start the allowing of group discrimination. We allowed it for about 190 years and have disallowed it do to the harms it causes for about 50 years.
So, classic internet forum conversation.

"You don't know the definition"

"Here's the definition"

"Well, yeah, but some people use it in a different way, so there are other definitions."

Meanwhile, the point is completely lost.

People who would impose legal penalties against a person who refuses to create a cake for an occasion, be it a wedding or an inauguration, could compare that person to a retail grocer, or to a band. The people who want to penalize the baker/photographer/florist/DJ want to compare that person to a grocer, because it conjures an image of a person walking into a store to buy some goods, and the person behind the counter says, "We don't serve your kind here." That's an ugly sort of image.

The people who want to support, or more accurately, tolerate, the decision of the baker/etc want to compare him to the band. Very few people would demand that a band perform at a venue where they do not feel comfortable. They see the band's performance as an integral part of the event, and would not think it appropriate to force someone to be part of an event that they disapproved of for political or religious reasons.

So we could pull out dueling dictionaries, or we could seek some common ground. Almost everyone would say that a band should not be required, by law, to play any performance anywhere, regardless of the sort of venues they normally play. Almost everyone would say that the band had the right to turn down a gig, for any reason, or for no reason at all, without legal penalty.

Meanwhile, almost everyone agrees that a person who sells goods at a store should be required by law to sell to almost anyone who comes into that store. There are a few exceptions, but today I happened to buy a can of beans at a store. For the most part, people would object if they refused to sell me that can of beans. In some cases we have specific laws covering certain classes, like gay people or Jewish people or handicapped people, but even if there is no law, most people would say that they ought to sell me a can of beans, unless there are some very specific reasons (like, for example, I walk into the store with no clothes on, or perhaps I am screaming "Repent for it is the end of the world!" while I'm waiting in line to buy the beans.). Generally, when it comes to "who I am" issues, like race, creed, sexual orientation, almost everyone would say that they really ought to sell me the beans.

So, if you are like most people, you say that bands shouldn't have to play, but grocers should have to sell beans.

Now it just becomes a simple matter of looking at the situation where some people want to penalize someone for refusing to provide the service. Let's take an example of creating a wedding cake. Is creating a wedding cake more like selling a can of beans, or more like playing for an event?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2017, 02:33 PM   #703
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
What's funny is that it is definitely not an exact cake. The proportions are way off. Trump would never notice something like that, though.

I'm slightly disappointed that he didn't have it topped-offed with a diamond encrusted Mr. Potatohead™. That's his idea of class.
Mr. Hankey would be much more appropriate!!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2017, 09:17 PM   #704
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,511
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
'Cause it is a stolen design? Trump's style.............
I missed that because of the colors on the images. Now I get it. It's darn close to an exact copy.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2017, 09:20 PM   #705
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,511
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't see the compelling interest in requiring businesses to sell to certain races.
Did you miss the 50s-60s or something?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.