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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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.
Tags gay rights issues , religious rights issues , supreme court cases

Reply
Old 10th July 2017, 08:56 AM   #201
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,190
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
The only sane handling of such situation, is that if you SELL stuff, be it art , services or mass produced stuff, in a venue open to the public, then you are not allowed to refuse a sale except in one case : the sale would be illegal (alcohol to minor).

That is pretty much how it function in many countries, and you don't have those shenanigan of "not selling to gay/colored/other gender/religion is freedom of expression" bovine excrement. As soon as you start to sell to the public, you sell to everybody or you sell to nobody.
I sell bespoke artworks to everybody, regardless of race, creed, or gender. My only rule is that I create artworks with certain themes. You're not entitled to command the theme of my expression, just because I'm willing to create and sell you a custom artwork with a theme of my choice.
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 10th July 2017, 09:05 AM   #202
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I sell bespoke artworks to everybody, regardless of race, creed, or gender. My only rule is that I create artworks with certain themes. You're not entitled to command the theme of my expression, just because I'm willing to create and sell you a custom artwork with a theme of my choice.
And that has nothing to do with the case, unless you can say that they were ordering some custom cake, and not a basic wedding cake.

You will clearly only sell the art you make to certain people, because when you find out who is buying it you publish their names and subject them to harassment. Not an objection to the artwork they were asking for.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 10th July 2017, 09:13 AM   #203
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
That is a definite shift to the right. You will get your christian dominion that Gorsuch if for.

And it is also the court that found corperations have religious beliefs, and can discriminate based on them in Hobby Lobby.
I think you may have mistaken Scalia for... literally anyone else on the planet.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 10th July 2017, 09:18 AM   #204
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
I think you may have mistaken Scalia for... literally anyone else on the planet.
No Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. It might not have been easy but they managed to find someone who that fit.

Remember how he was overturned by the entire supreme court during his nomination process for being for the education of disabled people?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 10th July 2017, 09:23 AM   #205
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Remember how he was overturned by the entire supreme court during his nomination process for being for the education of disabled people?
I recognize these words, but I don't see how they fit together to form a coherent thought.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 10th July 2017, 09:32 AM   #206
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
I recognize these words, but I don't see how they fit together to form a coherent thought.
You need to pay more attention.

http://time.com/4709234/neil-gorsuch...ourt-decision/
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 10th July 2017, 09:46 AM   #207
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
This does not support your claim that he is further to the right than Scalia.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 10th July 2017, 11:35 AM   #208
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
This does not support your claim that he is further to the right than Scalia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/u...t-nominee.html

https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-wi...a-141138f88e26

He is not so moderate as Scalia, and far more open to the courts acting to offset liberal initiatives from the voters.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 10th July 2017, 12:39 PM   #209
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,667
Regardless of who is farther to the right, Gorsuch or Scalia, they each get/got one vote, which one would expect to be in favor of the baker in this case, which means that this case of the baker will be ruled on by the same court that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states.
Meadmaker 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 10th July 2017, 12:49 PM   #210
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Regardless of who is farther to the right, Gorsuch or Scalia, they each get/got one vote, which one would expect to be in favor of the baker in this case, which means that this case of the baker will be ruled on by the same court that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states.
And it will be revisited with new examples when that supreme court is updated when Kennedy and Ginsburg kick it, which I am betting is a timeframe measured in months. This is not a final case, it is a data point on a trajectory.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 10th July 2017, 01:07 PM   #211
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/u...t-nominee.html

https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-wi...a-141138f88e26

He is not so moderate as Scalia, and far more open to the courts acting to offset liberal initiatives from the voters.
This is the first time I've seen someone unironically link thinkprogress and refer to Scalia as "moderate", even as comparison to someone else.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 10th July 2017, 01:15 PM   #212
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
This is the first time I've seen someone unironically link thinkprogress and refer to Scalia as "moderate", even as comparison to someone else.
And it was also linked to the failing new york times. Clearly also a losing pointless link.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 10th July 2017, 01:16 PM   #213
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Regardless of who is farther to the right, Gorsuch or Scalia, they each get/got one vote, which one would expect to be in favor of the baker in this case, which means that this case of the baker will be ruled on by the same court that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states.
ANd found that corporations have religious beliefs and the right to void federal laws based on those beliefs.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 10th July 2017, 01:50 PM   #214
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And it was also linked to the failing new york times. Clearly also a losing pointless link.
The NYTimes != ThinkProgress. One of these things is not like the other.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 10th July 2017, 01:52 PM   #215
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,763
If Free Exercise allows flouting of regulations, then the only way to also respect Equal Protection and the Establishment Clause (the government can't be preferential towards one religion or even religion vs. atheist/agnostic) -especially since we've seen that no specific doctrinal basis need be demonstrated- is that any "sincerely held belief" can be cited as grounds for disregarding rules.

This would certainly become a problem in a hurry.

So they either have to throw this out and say "in order to do licensed business in this country you respect our laws which require no discrimination," show blatant preference for a specific religious group, or make the business world into the wild, wild west.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 10th July 2017, 02:09 PM   #216
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,667
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
If Free Exercise allows flouting of regulations, then the only way to also respect Equal Protection and the Establishment Clause (the government can't be preferential towards one religion or even religion vs. atheist/agnostic) -especially since we've seen that no specific doctrinal basis need be demonstrated- is that any "sincerely held belief" can be cited as grounds for disregarding rules.

This would certainly become a problem in a hurry.

So they either have to throw this out and say "in order to do licensed business in this country you respect our laws which require no discrimination," show blatant preference for a specific religious group, or make the business world into the wild, wild west.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Or, another option is that they could declare that Free Exercise can be restricted if the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so, that could not be satisfied through less restrictive means.
Meadmaker 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 10th July 2017, 02:18 PM   #217
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
So they either have to throw this out and say "in order to do licensed business in this country you respect our laws which require no discrimination," show blatant preference for a specific religious group, or make the business world into the wild, wild west.
The status quo, in everything but public accommodations, has been that a business may discriminate on who it does business with. And that's usually a good thing.

As an engineer, I don't have to take a job of doing a seismic upgrade for the Westboro Baptist Church or a Wahabbi Mosque on the basis that their religion is crap. I can refuse to design a new Planned Parenthood clinic or a execution chamber in a prison based on my religious beliefs. I can refuse to be part of an engineering design for a consulate for Russia, Turkey, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, because I think they're ruled by poopy heads.

Many businesses refused to do business with South Africa during apartheid.
As part of the BDS movement, many businesses have stopped doing business with Israeli owned businesses.

The rules on public accommodations are absolutely necessary to allow the free movement of people, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 10th July 2017, 03:33 PM   #218
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
If Free Exercise allows flouting of regulations, then the only way to also respect Equal Protection and the Establishment Clause (the government can't be preferential towards one religion or even religion vs. atheist/agnostic) -especially since we've seen that no specific doctrinal basis need be demonstrated- is that any "sincerely held belief" can be cited as grounds for disregarding rules.

This would certainly become a problem in a hurry.

So they either have to throw this out and say "in order to do licensed business in this country you respect our laws which require no discrimination," show blatant preference for a specific religious group, or make the business world into the wild, wild west.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
We've been in a grey area for decades, where some religious exemptions are just fine, while others aren't, it just seems to depend on the religion.

I haven't found a coherent answer for why, for example, a Catholic pharmacist can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions with impunity, but a Scientologist pharmacist who refuses to fill psychiatric medication is legally fireable.

My impression is that it's not - and never will be - a Wild West. It's what I was mentioning above: there's a strategy of sculpting the law to create Christian license.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 10th July 2017, 03:53 PM   #219
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,763
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
We've been in a grey area for decades, where some religious exemptions are just fine, while others aren't, it just seems to depend on the religion.

I haven't found a coherent answer for why, for example, a Catholic pharmacist can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions with impunity, but a Scientologist pharmacist who refuses to fill psychiatric medication is legally fireable.

My impression is that it's not - and never will be - a Wild West. It's what I was mentioning above: there's a strategy of sculpting the law to create Christian license.
Agreed, and that's covered by the 2nd option I listed, showing blatant preference.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 10th July 2017, 07:58 PM   #220
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,907
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
So they either have to throw this out and say "in order to do licensed business in this country you respect our laws which require no discrimination," show blatant preference for a specific religious group, or make the business world into the wild, wild west.
There are actually many other possible options for the SCOTUS. One obvious one is to do as they did when flag desecration came up, rule that the act is a form of expression protected by the free speech clause. Frankly trying to nail down the options for a SCOTUS ruling to only a few possible outcomes is a fools errand.
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 11th July 2017, 03:07 AM   #221
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
The NYTimes != ThinkProgress. One of these things is not like the other.
And yet the argument is made in both. Clearly this means that the new york times is garbage.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 11th July 2017, 03:09 AM   #222
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
We've been in a grey area for decades, where some religious exemptions are just fine, while others aren't, it just seems to depend on the religion.

I haven't found a coherent answer for why, for example, a Catholic pharmacist can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions with impunity, but a Scientologist pharmacist who refuses to fill psychiatric medication is legally fireable.
It makes being a christian scientist pharmacist a really easy job.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 11th July 2017, 05:10 AM   #223
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,763
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
There are actually many other possible options for the SCOTUS. One obvious one is to do as they did when flag desecration came up, rule that the act is a form of expression protected by the free speech clause. Frankly trying to nail down the options for a SCOTUS ruling to only a few possible outcomes is a fools errand.
Well, that sounds like 2 or 3 depending on whether this kind of "expression" holds true in all instances (again, with no real clear definition on what doctrinal or rational basis the beliefs come from) or just for Christians/various xenophobes.

Also, flag burning in that context doesn't have any protected class/immutable quality issues. Finally, I feel like personal conduct that doesn't materially harm anyone should be considered a bit different than what licensed businesses (public accommodation, mostly) can "express" given that there are inherent consequences in access or opportunity that a business can have on a community through consumer relations and employment policies.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 11th July 2017, 07:11 AM   #224
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And yet the argument is made in both. Clearly this means that the new york times is garbage.
The NYTimes article does not make a claim that Gorsuch will be to the right of Scalia. If you're going to link articles, and state that they support your fantastical claims, do us all a favor and actually read it first.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 11th July 2017, 07:13 AM   #225
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,907
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Well, that sounds like 2 or 3 depending on whether this kind of "expression" holds true in all instances (again, with no real clear definition on what doctrinal or rational basis the beliefs come from) or just for Christians/various xenophobes.
You've missed the point completely. The point is that just like with flag desecration, if SCOTUS rules cake making as expression then all businesses and individuals can refuse and there is absolutely no religious connotation at all. It gives the baker an exemption that is based completely on the non-religious principles of freedom of speech/expression.

This is just like the case of the other CO baker that was exempt from writing on a cake for completely non-religious reasons because writing of any kind is speech/expression and is protected on it's own not tied to religion at all.
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 11th July 2017, 07:14 AM   #226
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,547
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
The only sane handling of such situation, is that if you SELL stuff, be it art , services or mass produced stuff, in a venue open to the public, then you are not allowed to refuse a sale except in one case : the sale would be illegal (alcohol to minor).

That is pretty much how it function in many countries, and you don't have those shenanigan of "not selling to gay/colored/other gender/religion is freedom of expression" bovine excrement. As soon as you start to sell to the public, you sell to everybody or you sell to nobody.
That's still pretty much where I'm at.

This whole balancing act of "You can refuse a sell for no reason, but not for this list of bad reasons" is too thin of a line to walk and doesn't make a lot of sense logically or morally.

But in America the idea that religious ideas should have special privileges is pretty well ingrained so I doubt we'll see it.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

Last edited by JoeBentley; 11th July 2017 at 07:27 AM.
JoeBentley 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 11th July 2017, 07:17 AM   #227
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
The NYTimes article does not make a claim that Gorsuch will be to the right of Scalia. If you're going to link articles, and state that they support your fantastical claims, do us all a favor and actually read it first.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t-nominee.html

He is marked there as to the right of scalia. He just has a bit more tact, though hates the idea of the courts being anything other than a brake on progress. He seems the kind to proudly be against brown vs board of ed for example. That sort of thing should have been handled legislatively.

Got any sources saying he is actually to the left of Scalia?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 11th July 2017, 07:26 AM   #228
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,932
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
The NYTimes article does not make a claim that Gorsuch will be to the right of Scalia. If you're going to link articles, and state that they support your fantastical claims, do us all a favor and actually read it first.
Small nitpick: saying that someone is to the right of Scalia is not fantastical.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 11th July 2017, 07:31 AM   #229
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,932
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
The only sane handling of such situation, is that if you SELL stuff, be it art , services or mass produced stuff, in a venue open to the public, then you are not allowed to refuse a sale except in one case : the sale would be illegal (alcohol to minor).

That is pretty much how it function in many countries, and you don't have those shenanigan of "not selling to gay/colored/other gender/religion is freedom of expression" bovine excrement. As soon as you start to sell to the public, you sell to everybody or you sell to nobody.
So if I have a restaurant I cannot refuse to seat a couple who are noisy and smelly? I cannot throw out people because they are bothering other customers with their constant yelling?

Of course there are legitimate reasons. It's still a private business. That's why there's a balancing act: as the owner of a busines I might decide not to sell to a customer because they've been rude to me, for example. Not selling because the customer is black, however, is a different matter.

Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
This whole balancing act of "You can refuse a sell for no reason, but not for this list of bad reasons" is too thin of a line to walk and doesn't make a lot of sense logically or morally.
See above. That's the danger of applying a rule or principle in such a blanket fashion.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 11th July 2017, 08:59 AM   #230
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So if I have a restaurant I cannot refuse to seat a couple who are noisy and smelly? I cannot throw out people because they are bothering other customers with their constant yelling?

Of course there are legitimate reasons. It's still a private business. That's why there's a balancing act: as the owner of a busines I might decide not to sell to a customer because they've been rude to me, for example. Not selling because the customer is black, however, is a different matter.
Unless the business has religious issues with blacks.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 11th July 2017, 09:08 AM   #231
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,763
Behaviors that are disruptive/abusive already carry penalties in many jurisdictions, so those kinds of carve-outs make sense and can be applied equally.

Everyone gets to patronize the (open to public) business in a lawful manner.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 11th July 2017, 10:00 AM   #232
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,932
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Unless the business has religious issues with blacks.
Well, that's why anti-discrimination laws should not have exceptions for religious reasons.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 11th July 2017, 10:01 AM   #233
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,932
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Behaviors that are disruptive/abusive already carry penalties in many jurisdictions, so those kinds of carve-outs make sense and can be applied equally.

Everyone gets to patronize the (open to public) business in a lawful manner.
Being loud, rude or unpleasant is not against the law.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 11th July 2017, 11:29 AM   #234
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,763
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Being loud, rude or unpleasant is not against the law.
Disturbing the peace/disorderly conduct.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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 11th July 2017, 11:33 AM   #235
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,190
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Disturbing the peace/disorderly conduct.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
But you don't need to meet the legal definitions for them to get kicked out of the restaurant.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 11th July 2017, 11:35 AM   #236
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,932
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Disturbing the peace/disorderly conduct.
I'm not talking about the patrons fighting in the restaurant. I'm talking about being loud. The owner has the right to throw them out even when it's not illegal, doesn't he?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 11th July 2017, 11:38 AM   #237
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,499
I'd be more comfortable carving out exemptions for when you can refuse service to someone, than exemptions for when you can't.

Similarly, I'm more sympathetic to people who don't want to serve rude customers than those who don't want to serve gay ones.
Beelzebuddy 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 11th July 2017, 11:42 AM   #238
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,932
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I'd be more comfortable carving out exemptions for when you can refuse service to someone, than exemptions for when you can't.
I don't know. The list for the former seems a lot longer than that of the latter. I think the simple principle is whether the discrimination is based on justified or unjustified characteristics.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 11th July 2017, 11:53 AM   #239
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,499
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I don't know. The list for the former seems a lot longer than that of the latter.
Only because "don't be a dick" is hard to legally define. We've got it in about a dozen rules, here.

But again, even with a much longer list, I'm happier evaluating whether some niche behavior is beyond the pale than whether the owner's ****headed bigotry is ****headed enough that he shouldn't be allowed to act on it.
Beelzebuddy 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 11th July 2017, 11:56 AM   #240
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,763
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But you don't need to meet the legal definitions for them to get kicked out of the restaurant.
Well, I think it's more that you need not actually have them arrested to convince them to leave.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not talking about the patrons fighting in the restaurant. I'm talking about being loud. The owner has the right to throw them out even when it's not illegal, doesn't he?
I didn't mean fighting either. Shouting, cussing, verbal harassment, and generally being a nuisance or preventing others from enjoying the setting (especially considering the owner's intentions about said setting) can all fall under disturbance/disorderly laws.

My point is that examples of being removed for ill behavior are terrible comparisons to being removed for a ethnicity/sex/gender/nationality/etc.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

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 07:36 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.