President Trump & the USA

[Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

OK. Then do you allow people to legally refuse to serve gay or black people too?

 

I see it, as a firm believer in the protection of individual liberty, whilst that might be a distasteful thing to do, that should be in someone's right. For me anything otherwise is making a choice on whose freedom is more important/more highly valued.

 

Someone refuses to serve another person then they incur a cost - the loss of business - and risk further costs from others in society reacting to their actions. As Carl said, market forces determine that they lose out. To force someone to serve a gay person possibly infringes on their freedom of religion. Maybe you don't like religion or find it odd whatever but they have a right to practice their religion and if they don't accept something, it's not down to us to force them to accept something. "I have no right to coerce someone else, because I cannot be sure that I'm right and he is wrong". 

The gay wedding cake ruling set a dangerous precedent in my eyes because it effectively ranked freedom of sexuality over freedom of religion. It's not a choice I would make, they're both entitled to those freedoms. It can't be fair to force catholics to make a gay wedding cake if they are happy to incur the cost of not doing so. There are plenty of other wedding cake makers that it doesn't really infringe on the freedoms of the gay couple, certainly comparatively to forcing someone to make a cake.

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Gays, legally, yes.  Morally, of course not and I repeat that they should expect to see their business struggle as a result once word gets out.

 

As far as I'm aware there's no centuries old book claiming that being black is a sin so obviously that one has no morally dubious religious loophole to exploit in the first place.

 

Seems to me like you're arguing against people's rights to hold religious beliefs.

Wow. It's 2018! Do you think that pubs should be allowed to put signs up outside saying "No gays allowed on the premises". ?

 

Whatabout disabled people?

 

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

There is a huge difference between legal and moral.  It's legal to get shitfaced on alcohol then throw up in public transport on your way home.  It's not legal to sit on your sofa sparking a blunt and watching Adventure Time. I know which one I find more morally palatable.

 

I do see the distinction that you're making. But I think you've got legal and moral the wrong way round.

 

Religion is irrelevant. it has no answers for problems of the 21st Century. But morality is fluid. Right now, you imagine that any establishment that banned blacks, gays, disabled etc would quickly go out of business. But what if it didn't? What if this approach slowly gained traction, and more and more places started doing it?

 

There's nothing set-in-stone that says that racism or homophobia is bad. That's just a common, liberal, belief in equality that most of us now hold. But it wasn't always the case and there's nothing to say that it won't be the case again in 10 or 20 years time unless it's protected by legal means.

 

So for that reason, the state has to set standards of equality that makes any sort of discrimination illegal.

 

However, the state has now sway over people's beliefs. If you are racist or homophobic then that's up to you. Your belief system is your own. What you shouldn't be allowed to do though is discrimate against anybody based on your own perculiar belief system. I don't like fat people. But I wouldn't ban them from being able to do anything that the non-fat are allowed to do.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

11 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Wow. It's 2018! Do you think that pubs should be allowed to put signs up outside saying "No gays allowed on the premises". ?

 

Whatabout disabled people?

 

 

I do see the distinction that you're making. But I think you've got legal and moral the wrong way round.

 

Religion is irrelevant. it has no answers for problems of the 21st Century. But morality is fluid. Right now, you imagine that any establishment that banned blacks, gays, disabled etc would quickly go out of business. But what if it didn't? What if this approach slowly gained traction, and more and more places started doing it?

 

There's nothing set-in-stone that says that racism or homophobia is bad. That's just a common, liberal, belief in equality that most of us now hold. But it wasn't always the case and there's nothing to say that it won't be the case again in 10 or 20 years time unless it's protected by legal means.

 

So for that reason, the state has to set standards of equality that makes any sort of discrimination illegal.

 

However, the state has now sway over people's beliefs. If you are racist or homophobic then that's up to you. Your belief system is your own. What you shouldn't be allowed to do though is discrimate against anybody based on your own perculiar belief system. I don't like fat people. But I wouldn't ban them from being able to do anything that the non-fat are allowed to do.

 

 

If it gets to the point where gay rights and minority rights started becoming increasingly infringed upon then I would support any social movement to rally against such trends.  I don't think we should infringe a person's religious rights based on whataboutery though, at least not until the point where those beliefs genuinely adversely affect or physically harm others.  Like GTF says there isn't that much harm caused by telling a person "I would rather not make that particular cake, please alter your design or find another establishment willing to fulfil your request".  We're not talking about lynch mobs here and I find it more dangerous to support the idea of forcing a person to put the time and effort into making a product that emotionally distresses them, regardless of how valid you think it is that they be distressed by it.

Edited 22 January 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Carl the Llama]

In short:

 

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

If it gets to the point where gay rights and minority rights started becoming increasingly infringed upon then I would support any social movement to rally against such trends.  I don't think we should infringe a person's religious rights based on whataboutery though, at least not until the point where those beliefs genuinely adversely affect or physically harm others.  Like GTF says there isn't that much harm caused by telling a person "I would rather not make that particular cake, please alter your design or find another establishment willing to fulfil your request".  We're not talking about lynch mobs here and I find it more dangerous to support the idea of forcing a person to put the time and effort into making a product that emotionally distresses them, regardless of how valid you think it is that they be distressed by it.

It’s such a tough one this. But I do agree with you. As stupid as I think most religions are and believe they’re holding society back, you can’t just simply decide someone’s freedoms of thoughts and expressions are more important than another’s. As soon as you marginalise people to force equality, you’re guilty of what you fight against.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

It’s such a tough one this. But I do agree with you. As stupid as I think most religions are and believe they’re holding society back, you can’t just simply decide someone’s freedoms of thoughts and expressions are more important than another’s. As soon as you marginalise people to force equality, you’re guilty of what you fight against.

Sometimes you do have to stop people from doing things they want to do for the greater good of society. Things like slavery and peasantry didn't disappear on their own. It took actual civil wars to stop slavery in parts of the USA. Few employers would voluntarily pay low skilled workers the minimum wage if they didn't have to. The free market would and does sell products that kill kids (ikea drawers) and burn people alive (grenfell) where regulation is ineffective. The idea of this great democratic free market that creates the ideal society all by itself is a nice one but has absolutely no basis in any sort of reality. Sometimes things need a push and that's why things like positive discrimination and forcing cake sellers to sell cakes to gays are often justified.

Edited 22 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest MattP]

The worst thing about the whole gay cake row was how misrepresented the facts were, people were led to believe they had refused to serve a gay couple, when if you read what actually happened in any depth they had refused to decorate a cake with a "pro gay slogan" on it - two completely different things, the BBC did report it correctly.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

 

Quote

 

The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have lost their appeal against a ruling that their refusal to make a "gay cake" was discriminatory.

Appeal court judges said that, under law, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs.

Two years ago, the family-run firm refused to make a cake iced with the slogan: "Support Gay Marriage".

The order was placed at its Belfast shop by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.

The firm argued that the cake's message was against the bakers' religious views.

Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious freedom and free speech".

"If equality law means people can be punished for politely refusing to support other people's causes then equality law needs to change," he said.

"We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.

"The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.

"We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message.

 

Had a gay couple wanted to buy a cake, they could do, the way certain sections of the media played on a lie that were "refusing to serve cakes to gay people" was appalling, they knew they were lying as well, but they were so driven by ideology they didn't care.

Edited 22 January 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

I rather think this discussion is drifting.

 

This isn't about a business baking a cake or not baking a cake, but the possibility of medical professionals refusing life-saving treatment to trans people and that being ok under the law.

 

Rather different kettle of fish.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

The worst thing about the whole gay cake row was how misrepresented the facts were, people were led to believe they had refused to serve a gay couple, when if you read what actually happened in any depth they had refused to decorate a cake with a "pro gay slogan" on it - two completely different things, the BBC did report it correctly.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

 

Had a gay couple wanted to buy a cake, they could do, the way certain sections of the media played on a lie that were "refusing to serve cakes to gay people" was appalling, they knew they were lying as well, but they were so driven by ideology they didn't care.

The guardian seem clear about it as well:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row

 

Which reputable news source reported it as "refusing to serve cakes to gay people"?

 

Are you sure you're not getting confused with the 2012 case from Colorado where a gay couple were refused service for being gay?

 

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I rather think this discussion is drifting.

 

This isn't about a business baking a cake or not baking a cake, but the possibility of medical professionals refusing life-saving treatment to trans people and that being ok under the law.

 

Rather different kettle of fish.

I don't think there has been any suggestion of trans people being refused life saving treatment to be fair. 

 

The issues are fundamentally the same as they both relate to Person A refusing to do something for Person B on the basis of beliefs Person A holds about an aspect of Person B's identity. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I don't think there has been any suggestion of trans people being refused life saving treatment to be fair. 

 

The issues are fundamentally the same as they both relate to Person A refusing to do something for Person B on the basis of beliefs Person A holds about an aspect of Person B's identity. 

The fact that this law would allow the possibility to exist is enough to worry me - there's enough anti-trans sentiment in various areas of the US for someone to possibly use the legislation in that way. And the people who crafted the legislation knew that when they made it up, otherwise they would have been more precise with the wording.

 

I would agree that in principle the issues are the same, but one has a greater degree of severity than the other (as it has the potential to affect lives and health directly) and so perhaps should be considered differently.

[Jattdogg]

....So back to trump being a twat lol...

 

Any good news on that front?

Edited 22 January 2018 by Jattdogg

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

....So back to trump being a twat lol...

 

Any good news on that front?

Well, it seems that both parties have come to some kind of agreement to end the government shutdown, which is good.

 

And of course the WH blames the Dems for this, because apparently controlling all three wings of the legislature isn't enough to get anything passed.

[Trav Le Bleu]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

The worst thing about the whole gay cake row was how misrepresented the facts were, people were led to believe they had refused to serve a gay couple, when if you read what actually happened in any depth they had refused to decorate a cake with a "pro gay slogan" on it - two completely different things, the BBC did report it correctly.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

 

Had a gay couple wanted to buy a cake, they could do, the way certain sections of the media played on a lie that were "refusing to serve cakes to gay people" was appalling, they knew they were lying as well, but they were so driven by ideology they didn't care.

You wonder what would happen if a Muslim baker was asked to bake a cake in the fashion of a pig, or a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake, but it had to be cooked fresh on Saturday morning, or maybe going back to Christians, asked to bake a "God is dead" cake by atheists. Refusal to promote something you don't agree with, regardless of the legitimacy of it, should be part of freedom of expression and where two freedoms clash, then you just agree to disagree and go your separate ways, as civilized people should.

 

 

It seems that mere tolerance will no longer be tolerated. Now that's a paradox.

[Mike Oxlong]

B8D390CB-0369-4A15-A6FA-4665635F850E.MP4

[leicsmac]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370171-trump-imposes-30-tariffs-on-solar-panel-imports

 

Which of these two outcomes is more likely:

 

a.) This administration pushes the US photovoltaic array industry to make up the shortfall.

b.) This administration pushes coal to fill the gap this will create and neglects solar tech.

 

Place your bets, people.

[TheyCallMeMrCarbohydrate]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

You wonder what would happen if a Muslim baker was asked to bake a cake in the fashion of a pig, or a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake, but it had to be cooked fresh on Saturday morning, or maybe going back to Christians, asked to bake a "God is dead" cake by atheists. Refusal to promote something you don't agree with, regardless of the legitimacy of it, should be part of freedom of expression and where two freedoms clash, then you just agree to disagree and go your separate ways, as civilized people should.

 

 

It seems that mere tolerance will no longer be tolerated. Now that's a paradox.

This.

 

The unpalatable thing about the tolerance movement is that the only opinion that a person is legitimately allowed to hold, just happens to be the same one they do.

 

The freedom of conscience and the freedom of expression are, deep down, what is really at stake here, on both sides of the political divide, but especially on the left.

 

Since when did being a free society depend upon conformity to the prevailing values of the few? And they are the few...

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

You wonder what would happen if a Muslim baker was asked to bake a cake in the fashion of a pig, or a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake, but it had to be cooked fresh on Saturday morning, or maybe going back to Christians, asked to bake a "God is dead" cake by atheists. Refusal to promote something you don't agree with, regardless of the legitimacy of it, should be part of freedom of expression and where two freedoms clash, then you just agree to disagree and go your separate ways, as civilized people should.

 

 

It seems that mere tolerance will no longer be tolerated. Now that's a paradox.

 

1 hour ago, TheyCallMeMrCarbohydrate said:

This.

 

The unpalatable thing about the tolerance movement is that the only opinion that a person is legitimately allowed to hold, just happens to be the same one they do.

 

The freedom of conscience and the freedom of expression are, deep down, what is really at stake here, on both sides of the political divide, but especially on the left.

 

Since when did being a free society depend upon conformity to the prevailing values of the few? And they are the few...

I say again:

 

This is no longer about a business baking a cake or not baking a cake (and all other assorted arguments regarding freedom of expression and conscience), but the possibility of medical professionals refusing life-saving treatment to trans people and that being ok under the law.

 

Rather different kettle of fish.

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

20 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I see it, as a firm believer in the protection of individual liberty, whilst that might be a distasteful thing to do, that should be in someone's right. For me anything otherwise is making a choice on whose freedom is more important/more highly valued.

 

Someone refuses to serve another person then they incur a cost - the loss of business - and risk further costs from others in society reacting to their actions. As Carl said, market forces determine that they lose out. To force someone to serve a gay person possibly infringes on their freedom of religion. Maybe you don't like religion or find it odd whatever but they have a right to practice their religion and if they don't accept something, it's not down to us to force them to accept something. "I have no right to coerce someone else, because I cannot be sure that I'm right and he is wrong". 

The gay wedding cake ruling set a dangerous precedent in my eyes because it effectively ranked freedom of sexuality over freedom of religion. It's not a choice I would make, they're both entitled to those freedoms. It can't be fair to force catholics to make a gay wedding cake if they are happy to incur the cost of not doing so. There are plenty of other wedding cake makers that it doesn't really infringe on the freedoms of the gay couple, certainly comparatively to forcing someone to make a cake.

OK but I don't think you answered my question. I accept the point about the cake. But as Matt pointed out that was a particular case whereby they didn't refuse to serve the couple because they were gay, rather only because they didn't want to write the message on the cake. That's fair enough. As LeicsMac points out : different kettle of fish.

 

Do you allow any business to legally refuse to serve gay people because they're gay? What about Government employees? Are they allowed to refuse to deal with gay people because of their religious beliefs?

 

I don't have a problem with religion but I don't think it's a special case. Hence, if you justify discrimination on religious grounds, how can you restrict it on political or social grounds? Christians are allowed to refuse to serve gay people. Can I therefore refuse to serve immigrants, or white supremicists, or ginger people, if I don't want to? What's the difference?

 

What's odd is hearing Liberal principles used to justify ultra-conservative or religious prejudices. Do you not see a big hypocrisy or at least a contradiction there?

 

Liberalism prizes the  freedom of the individual yes, and the mechanics of market forces uphold this freedom. But should that freedom be upheld if it is used to discriminate against another person? Market forces upheld the slave trade. Does that mean it was right?

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

OK but I don't think you answered my question. I accept the point about the cake. But as Matt pointed out that was a particular case whereby they didn't refuse to serve the couple because they were gay, rather only because they didn't want to write the message on the cake. That's fair enough. As LeicsMac points out : different kettle of fish.

 

Do you allow any business to legally refuse to serve gay people because they're gay? What about Government employees? Are they allowed to refuse to deal with gay people because of their religious beliefs?

 

I don't have a problem with religion but I don't think it's a special case. Hence, if you justify discrimination on religious grounds, how can you restrict it on political or social grounds? Christians are allowed to refuse to serve gay people. Can I therefore refuse to serve immigrants, or white supremicists, or ginger people, if I don't want to? What's the difference?

 

What's odd is hearing Liberal principles used to justify ultra-conservative or religious prejudices. Do you not see a big hypocrisy or at least a contradiction there?

 

Liberalism prizes the  freedom of the individual yes, and the mechanics of market forces uphold this freedom. But should that freedom be upheld if it is used to discriminate against another person? Market forces upheld the slave trade. Does that mean it was right?

You can't moan about false equivalencies and then compare legislation allowing individuals religious freedoms with slavery and white supremacy.   And there is no contradiction with liberal views defending the existence of conservative ones, not unless we're talking about antifa's dictatorial, thuggish interpretation of liberalism.

 

I think we need to take a step back for a second though:  What exactly is the wording of this new legislation?  I can't imagine it making it possible for a trans person to arrive at a hospital in critical condition and subsequently dying because the staff refuse to treat them (not least because that would make those people pretty bad at being Christians and make you question how they ended up in the healthcare profession in the first place).  If the wording genuinely leaves that possibility open then of course there's a problem with it and I don't think anybody in here's argued that that's an acceptable scenario.

[Fox Ulike]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You can't moan about false equivalencies and then compare legislation allowing individuals religious freedoms with slavery and white supremacy.   And there is no contradiction with liberal views defending the existence of conservative ones, not unless we're talking about antifa's dictatorial, thuggish interpretation of liberalism.

 

I think we need to take a step back for a second though:  What exactly is the wording of this new legislation?  I can't imagine it making it possible for a trans person to arrive at a hospital in critical condition and subsequently dying because the staff refuse to treat them (not least because that would make those people pretty bad at being Christians and make you question how they ended up in the healthcare profession in the first place).  If the wording genuinely leaves that possibility open then of course there's a problem with it and I don't think anybody in here's argued that that's an acceptable scenario.

It's not my comparison. You're the one upholding it. If you use a principle of "The protection of individual liberty" to justify a law, then that law has to apply equally to all. If you disagree with this, then don't bother reading any further.

 

So. You cannot make a law that says "It's OK to discriminate against gay people on religious grounds". Because according to your own "individual liberty" principle, you're discriminating against non-religious people. Why is it OK for Christians to discriminate but not the non-religious?

 

So, you have to make a law that just says "it's OK to discriminate against gay people".

 

But again, you're contradicting your liberalist principles because : Why are gay people singled out? What about adulterers and those who covet their neighbour's wife?

 

So, you have to make a law which just says "It's OK to discriminate where ever you so wish." Maybe you agree with this? Should a gay person be allowed to refuse to serve a vicar?

 

What you're doing is simply putting your own Liberalist beliefs and prejudices at the centre of the Universe and applying them as-and-when it suits you. Hence why you defend anti-gay prejudice but you won't allow anti-immigrant prejudice.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

It's not my comparison. You're the one upholding it. If you use a principle of "The protection of individual liberty" to justify a law, then that law has to apply equally to all. If you disagree with this, then don't bother reading any further.

 

So. You cannot make a law that says "It's OK to discriminate against gay people on religious grounds". Because according to your own "individual liberty" principle, you're discriminating against non-religious people. Why is it OK for Christians to discriminate but not the non-religious?

 

So, you have to make a law that just says "it's OK to discriminate against gay people".

 

But again, you're contradicting your liberalist principles because : Why are gay people singled out? What about adulterers and those who covet their neighbour's wife?

 

So, you have to make a law which just says "It's OK to discriminate where ever you so wish." Maybe you agree with this? Should a gay person be allowed to refuse to serve a vicar?

 

What you're doing is simply putting your own Liberalist beliefs and prejudices at the centre of the Universe and applying them as-and-when it suits you. Hence why you defend anti-gay prejudice but you won't allow anti-immigrant prejudice.

Do you understand the difference between a gay person and a trans person?  I'm not defending anti-gay prejudice at all, indeed I'm not even defending anti-trans prejudice. You can't throw slurs around just because you disagree with my position... one which I'm not sure you've properly read and understood.

 

To remind you:  My point was that even regrettable religious views where a person believes that performing an action will damn their soul should be upheld if, and I think this is the 3rd or 4th time that I'm saying this, it is possible to ensure that there is no harm caused by doing so.

Edited 23 January 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Do you understand the difference between a gay person and a trans person?  I'm not defending anti-gay prejudice at all, indeed I'm not even defending anti-trans prejudice. You can't throw slurs around just because you disagree with my position... one which I'm not sure you've properly read and understood.

 

To remind you:  My point was that even regrettable views should be upheld if, and I think this is the 3rd or 4th time that I'm saying this, it is possible to ensure that there is no harm caused by doing so. 

Yes but your point doesn't extend any further than that discrimination is permitted if it's founded in Christianity and only happens in cake shops.

 

If you answered any of the questions that I'd asked you then we might be able to move things on a bit.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

Yes but your point doesn't extend any further than that discrimination is permitted if it's founded in Christianity and only happens in cake shops.

Not sure how you got that impression unless you've been substituting "religious" for "Christian" every time you read it.  There are other religions you know.

 

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

If you answered any of the questions that I'd asked you then we might be able to move things on a bit.

I think I've answered your sensible questions but I'm not going to be drawn into nonsensical discussion about discriminating about the disabled. I'm sorry if I missed anything, what else were you waiting for a response to?  While you're letting me know perhaps you could answer my question about the wording of this legislation.

[Fox Ulike]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Not sure how you got that impression unless you've been substituting "religious" for "Christian" every time you read it.  There are other religions you know.

 

I think I've answered your sensible questions but I'm not going to be drawn into nonsensical discussion about discriminating about the disabled. I'm sorry if I missed anything, what else were you waiting for a response to?  While you're letting me know perhaps you could answer my question about the wording of this legislation.

So discrimination against gays is a sensible topic, but discrimination against the disabled is nonsensical? You need to explain that.

 

I asked whether Government employees could refuse to deal with gay people based on their religious beliefs.

I asked why religious discriminations were permitted, but not social or political ones.

I asked if you'd allow pubs to put up notices saying that they "reserve to right to refuse service to gays"

I asked if this principle was reciprocal. ie, can gay people refuse to serve the religious?

 

None of those are nonsensical.