(Just write (quote) like that, then later do another (/quote) to close it. Except use angly brackets instead of parens.)




How? Because it's something we both agree on? Is morality decided by popular vote? Why is it okay to limit an activity when you think it's wrong, but not when I think it's wrong?



There's a few points here.
1) Life isn't fair. Life is not meant to be fair. I'm not sure why being fair is even desirable. So the fact that boys can eat pie and girls can't, while indeed not fair, isn't a huge social wrong that needs to be fixed any more than the fact that girls can give birth and boys can't. I'm not upset about discrimination because it's not 'fair' because we're not in second grade any more.

2) This is of course a constructed example, and an important detail here is "no one" will sell you lemon pie. However, in the US at least, and most of the western world, you're not going to find a lot of examples where one bakery won't sell because of moral beliefs, and none of the others will either. In the original case here, if the woman couldn't buy her wedding dress at shop A, she should go shop at shops B, C, and D. Yes, if there was conspiracy to not sell this individual a dress, or if there's a monopoly of this sort of service, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but that isn't the case.

3) Lemon pies, like wedding dresses, are luxuries. Again, I'm not going to die from not getting lemon pie. I am, at most, minorly inconvenienced, because I have to spend half an hour making my own damn pie. If the saleswoman was refusing to sell insulin to a gay diabetic, again I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But she's selling wedding dresses, and I'm not aware of anyone suffering from a medical condition whose only cure is more wedding dress.

4) Ultimately, I do understand the situation (honestly!) I have been turned out of shops before, and it feels bad. I'm not saying the buyer doesn't have a case; she does. But the seller also has a case. In a perfect world, the buyer should be able to buy her dress, and the seller should be able to NOT sell it, but obviously, that isn't possible in the real world. So we have to decide in favor of one person or the other. In this case, I think the right of an individual over her own personal property trumps the privilege of having money. The lesbian woman does not have a 'right' in question here. We have no right to excellent service, or to a great product at a great price. But we do have a right to refuse to associate with people, and to control our personal property. So, while I feel for the lesbian woman, I don't think it's fair to the saleswoman to force her to do business like that.



'the public at large'? The lady isn't running a strip club in front of a pre-school. She's denying a single individual from buying her product. But really, your question rephrases to "why inconvenience this woman, when you can quit your job and livelihood and maybe get another job in a field you have no skill in" (ignoring the fact that if I happen to be a salesperson, I probably don't know anything about writing technical manuals). I'm not sure where you work, but my field is pretty specialized, and if a law was passed that said I had to engage in unethical behavior in order to keep my job, that would literally mean I'm choosing between following what I, with an educated conscience, believe is right, and living, with my kids, on the street. Do you honestly think that living on the street is the less of a nuisance than asking a customer to go to the other shop down the road?
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:04, Fri 15 June 2012.

kat [sorry still not quite working the quotes]: “How? Because it's something we both agree on? Is morality decided by popular vote? Why is it okay to limit an activity when you think it's wrong, but not when I think it's wrong?”

I'm not actually saying what you state.  In a modern, secular, and rational society, the government should limit activities not because in someone's theological dogma [mine or yours] it's abstractly “wrong.” I'm saying that the government often has to choose between competing interests (which is what the US Supreme court does when deciding freedom of speech cases and there is child pornography involved, for example) and come down on the side of favoring the interest that best serves the most people and limits the specifically identifiable and "worst" harms (thereby choosing the lesser harm) to citizens of said government.

For example Freedom of speech is an important right or interest, and a protected right, but children's bodily integrity and health are also important and abusing them harms them to no end.  Limiting freedom of speech may cause harm (or be “wrong” in a somewhat abstract way) but when put it directly against children's bodily safety and well being, preventing some “free speech” in order to protect children is the more rational choice between these competing interests. I'm not actually even talking about morality, just what is a more rational way to live and have everyon's freedoms and rights protected to the greatest extent possible. We could go on and on, but that is essentially what is happening here.  Competing interests and the more rational one wins as far what the state's position should be in the matter. I'm not saying I have a better, more moral compass than you, I'm just saying that there is a rational way to choose and your system is not it.

kat “The lesbian woman does not have a 'right' in question here. We have no right to excellent service...But we do have a right to refuse to associate with people, and to control our personal property. So, while I feel for the lesbian woman, I don't think it's fair to the saleswoman to force her to do business like that.”

Would that be the same line you would give Rosa Parks about her lack of rights to ride somewhere on the bus other than in the back?  Riding in the back is just an inconvenience, correct?  Just poor service. Why force the bus driver to associate with Rosa, or force any of the other passengers near the front to sit by her? Or in a privately owned "lunch counter" why not allow the shop owner to sort people by their level of moral standing? After all, they can go down the street to another lunch counter or find another driking fountain, or pool, right?

Why do you think you can control your "personal property" in any manner you want? You may be familiar with the popularly named Civil Rights Act of 1964. "In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing..." [http://www.archives.gov/educat...ns/civil-rights-act/].

Are you sticking to your statement? So far the law doesn't include homosexuals to my knowledge, but the government has already said "hold on, store owner, you can't do WHATEVER you want with your store (property) if that means discriminating by not hiring these folks..." At least be factually correct, please.

As for the comments regarding the public at large being harmed by following your theory of letting people just exclude others based on abstract judgments of immorality, yes, if we logically extend your argument people of all kinds can be excluded from service (not just this individual in the wedding example) because the salespeople/store owners think that “those kind” are immoral in some way.  Black people, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Catholics [Northern Ireland, anyone?], plain Christians even.

Yes imagine yourself being in the minority rather than a politically powerful majority. How would you like to be a Christian woman in Saudi Arabia—no vote, no driving, no walking around without an male escort, no baring your ankles or whatever.  Would your line still be “life isn't supposed to be fair and that's ok” or rather, “this sucks, take me to somewhere where at least I have a choice between selling dresses to gay people or living on the street in a bathing suit...” Ok humor aside, the basic point is the same—maybe life isn't fair, but we have tried to make it more so in this country because that is better than the alternative. That's still why so many people want to come here.  It's not perfect by any means, but it is on to something.

Yeah, I realized I totally botched my own 'look how easy it is to quote!' quote -_-.




1) I agree in those cases where it is the government's business. For example, I don't believe it is the government's business what sort of kinky sex I get up to with my spouse.

1b) I doubt you and I would agree what is the 'government's business'. So how do we decide that? Based on what the government believes? (Because the government believes EVERYTHING is it's business.) Based on popular vote? (Like Ammendment 9 in California?)

2) And how do we define interests? I'm very interested in my personal freedom. Maybe you don't care about freedom, you're more worried about physical security.


I am curious though, in this particular case, with a woman being denied services in a store for a non-essential service, what 'interests' do you feel are at stake?



I've actually already touched on this, and there are a few issues you're brushing over;

1) Buses are a necessary service. If I can't get to work, I can't feed my family. Like I've said, if the saleswoman was selling insulin, I'd argue that she needs to swallow her issues and put the survival of the woman she disagrees with first. But wedding dresses are not necessary services.

2) Being black is not a moral choice. I can't choose to be black. There's no such thing as 'black activities'. Ergo, there's no issue of transference of moral responsibility. While being homosexual is not a choice, engaging in homosexual activity is. If homosexual activity is indeed immoral (just imagine with me for a moment, or replace it with rape if you prefer), and I'm assisting you with it, transference of moral responsibility is an issue.

3) Buses are a public service. The government needs to be blind to this, because the government has no 'private property'. And when you agree to work for the government, voluntary relinquishment of some of your rights recognition is a condition of employment (just like you can't join the army, but then refuse to go to war because you value your right to life).



Didn't you just, one post ago, say "I didn't say just because it's legal it's ok."?

Something being legal (or illegal) has no bearing on its morality. So even if the law did change to say 'you can't decide not to sell to homosexuals or child rapists or murderers or whatever' I'd STILL say it's morally wrong. And I think you would too, because I'm willing to bet you'd say when the law said 'you CANNOT sell to people of this religion or race', you thought that was morally wrong.



That would actually describe a third of my life :)



Please see my points above

kat "1) Buses are a necessary service. If I can't get to work, I can't feed my family."

Yes, but Rosa could still get to work on the back of the bus, just not sitting in the preferred or most convenient rows.  So since her economic interest of getting to work is intact, no harm done, right? She has no beef according to your logic. Life's not fair, just suck it up Rosa.

kat "(just like you can't join the army, but then refuse to go to war because you value your right to life)."

Maybe not exactly because you value your own life, but you can request an honorable discharge because you value all life and develope a belief against war once you've signed up.

Again, before making an argument based on a scenario or supposed rules, it helps to check the facts:

"Myth #3
A person who has seen combat or who has confirmed kills cannot get out for conscientious objection.

Fact:

In order to qualify for CO status, you have to show that your beliefs against participating in war were formed by your experiences since joining the miltary.  Many experiences can change a person's beliefs and lead them to oppose war or participating in war.  Often, a military member's combat experiences and/or the actions they took in combat are exactly what changes their beliefs about war.  For others, their transformative experiences occur during basic or specialty training before they ever deploy.  For still others, just hearing about their fellow members' war experiences can be enough to convince them that they don't want to participate in war.  When applying for CO status, you are required to describe the occurances that led you to your current beliefs.  The most convincing stories are those given in the most detail--whenever and wherever they occurred." [http://girightshotline.org/en/...scientious-objection]

A major premise of your whole argument is that handling your "own property" is the most important right in the equation of you the shopkeeper vs. the lesbian shopper. Where does that come from? Is that a relgious dogma point that is simply "moral" and therefore inviolable? If so, then by circular self-supporting logic you will never concede anything and the discussion is moot from the get go...

So what the two of you are discussing is essentially this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...uple-sue?INTCMP=SRCH
(I was looking for a case that I thought was in Scotland where the court ruled against the bed&breakfast, and instead found one in Hawaii. I have no idea if the Hawaii case has been settled yet.)

Though I think in an abstract sense Kertook permits the government too much power over private morality, I agree with his(?) specific instances and with the non-discrimination law. If you run a business, it should be available to the public.

Where I draw the line (a bit further than some governments seem to) is in regard to specifically religiously affiliated businesses, such as religious hospitals or inns. I think that such businesses are part of the religion in question, and their obligation to obey the tenets of the religion should take precedence. I would extend this to all non-profit businesses founded on an ethical basis: that a religious hospital should not be forced to hire doctors who are not of their religion, and a vegan group should not be forced to hire an employee who eats meat. The religious hospital should be able to not offer treatments it judges to be unethical, because it is an ethically-based business. (I suppose this is not an entirely analogous case, because I am *not* saying that a religious hospital should be allowed to refuse to treat individuals with treatments it offers to others.)

Jesus: "Love thy neighbor as thy self."
Bigot: "But what if they are gay, or a different skin color, or dont worship like I do?"
Jesus: "Did I fucking stutter?"

That is my sucinct response to this whole argument.

It doesn't matter. The ability to mess with those critical services in one way implies an ability to regulate them.



Did I say "all life"? I said "my life". Please don't intentionally rephrase my statement, then slam me for being wrong. My point stands (in addition to the other three).

And here's the big kicker, not only have you ignored my two major points (you're welcome to ignore the third one regarding public service), you've ignored my direct, pointed question;

If it was legal in your country to rape people, and someone comes into your store to say 'hey, I want to buy a length of rope to rape my child bride tonight', would you sell him the rope?



I have actually asked you the exact same question, which you have thus far refused to answer. What is the 'right' the lesbian holds here?

However, to answer your question, the right to personal property is a well-established human right. It's documented under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is ingrained in every western democracy. It was established by John Locke, and hinted at in the Magna Carta. If you are denying that the shopkeeper has a right to property, then I would have to say that you are the one being dogmatic.

I think that the shopkeeper's rights here are pretty clear for everyone reading. The part that is in question is the lesbian woman's rights. What right of hers is at stake? I've asked, and the best I've gotten is some sort of nebulous group-right that her being denied service is "harm" to all of the general public (I imagine a crowd of other homosexuals were just waiting outside of the door for their turn, only to be turned away :P )




Not precisely. I'd tend to rule that a 'place to sleep' is probably a necessary service. I can still understand the inn-keeper's position, but when it comes to a bed over your head, I can definitely see the couple as having a real justification here.



re: Alexei -- and Jesus went on to say "don't commit sins of lust" as an instruction to me. So if I'm loving myself by not committing sins of lust, it makes sense that I love you by not helping you commit those sins either (or at least, not being a part of them).

I agree with private businesses they should not be forced to hire or serve anyone they don't wish to if ACME decides not to hire anyone but white protestant men fine by me, but in reverse customers don't have to give them business. I do however feel that the government must be neutral and accomodate the disabled, hire all sorts of people and can use their money to favor businesses who are diversity based.

The government should be the bully pulpit but mandating good behavior rarely works.

Take Cracker Barrel they discriminated against gays so I wrote them and told them they lost any hope for my business, and decided not to go there even though one is nearby. That is my right as a consumer. That is how one should promote good behavior in businesses make it hurt or help the bottom line.

In reply to katisara (msg # 52):

[next time I will try the quote per the recent help in ooc--thanks]

kat ]: "I have actually asked you the exact same question, which you have thus far refused to answer. What is the 'right' the lesbian holds here?"

I am going to hit pause on my side of this debate, pending developements in the "dogma" thread, where I think the basic issue will come to a head and this discussion will become largely moot. I do intend to eventually answer that question over there because I think it fits perhaps even better.

In some ways it's like we are speaking two different languages and the messages are just being garbled.

When people who disagree are talking "past" each other, it helps to go back and stipulate what they do indeed agree upon or concede so they can focus on those areas where they do not and try and resolve, prove, or understand those areas where the disagreement actually lies.

So far, and it is out of lack of time mostly, I have assumed that we have more common ground to start our discussion upon than we actually do, and I do not have the time to write a doctoral thesis length piece to prove every point that I had thought we could agree upon. I can leave it open to come back to attempt that, if it  might make a difference, but I think in the end it will prove pointless.

That's fair, and I understand.

http://designisgood.blogspot.c...ith-another-boy.html

Pictures like this show me (a) we're winning and (b) there's no way "this is a sin"!

In case you feel like 6 is too young to know you're gay...

There's always 7 :) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...m-gay_b_1277910.html

The Revolutionary is NOT responsibile for any drop in your IQ or sense of self respect for watching the following video.  It is a girl this time, evidently one I'm told has become "rather famous?"

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/honey-boo-boo-uncle-poodle-gay_n_1919874.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

---

Why do you assume children can't sin?

In reply to katisara (msg # 59):

Well, I assume it since I don't believe there is any sin.

But, if you're asking me why do I think this is persuasive, it's because we're hardwired (barring things like sociopathy) to find the children of most mammal species to be adorable, worthy of protection and "love", etc.

So, I know there will be a cognitive dissonance.

Also, another win ...or at least half win?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...eform_n_1924763.html

Sort of like when child abuse got a "win" by applying the animal abuse laws to kids at first.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I have to ask; do you have any kids of your own?

Not sure those article do anything for or against being gay.  My kids told me all sorts of strange things like that they want to marry their sister.  Based on the logic being used I should then assume that incest is also normal?

Again, I actually am someone who believes that being gay is likely a strong combination of both nature AND nurture, and a supporter of gay marriage.

I just think pointing to a few kids who say random things about sexuality is not the best way to try and find support for the position.

Yes...and no.

That's not the logic I'm applying.

And incest is normal.

That something is "normal" (a word we really should define frankly) doesn't mean it's good.  Or that it should be "encouraged" or that it's "healthful".

It's a funny thing.  I'm talking about WINNING in this case.  and you win more often on non-logical grounds.

Just as we've been hurt on non-logical grounds (perverted sinners)...

I'm saying -- stories and pictures like this are "win"... Not saying stories like this suggest that kids have any special access to truth (in fact, they tend to have special access to fiction).



Terms that would benefit from definition.

And, I don't know if you think that includes wholly intra-utero stimuli as well.

Plus, there may well be different causes for similar outcomes.  Such as female homosexuality may be differently established or even have greater fluidity than male sexual orientation.

I've not really ever understood why the "why" matters?



Ah and now we get to another issue.

Logical does not equal best.

And it's a great way to get support.  Have you not seen the anti-gay propaganda about the "children"?

I remember now that this is about being the winner for you first and foremost.  The us vs them is not my style and thus why I can't relate.

You are right though that if your goal is to simply try and convince the masses by any means possible then I suppose this helps you "win", even though from a logical standpoint it's pretty much pointless.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 64):

Perhaps you can relate to the fact that this is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH.

As long as the issue is handled as 'win as any cost' by both sides then both sides are complete losers in my books.

Good think you book isn't the "Book of life"

Because I'm writing the names in THAT BOOK.

Why is this an issue of life and death? No one is debating if it's okay to kill homosexuals.

Perhaps you mean "no one here"?  Certainly, you know there are people calling for the death of my people?

Even so, if the people here not only are not "debating it" but actually agree it is NOT ethical to build a society that leads to the death of a group for not other reason than their group identity, then, all here would fully support full equality.

Inequality ---> death.

Inequality = death? Ouch.

I honestly can't imagine anyone here that would be convinced that's accurate. Convinced you view it strongly, yes, but the only people calling for death of any group are hate groups like Nazi's and KKK.

I have yet to see the same people helping out in the soup lines, the homeless shelters, and orphanages going over to the homosexual hang outs to kill them through inequality.

Inequality must be a very slow method of death.