The Trump Admin: Religious Liberty vs. LGBTQ Rights

[Bomb#20]

And if photographers within 50 miles all refuse to serve gay marriages? At what point does lack of accommodation become a problem?

That's the point I'm trying to make, and that Bomb#20 doesn't seem to grasp. There is no difference between a cashier at a grocery store refusing to check me out with my purchases because I'm a [racial slur], and a photographer refusing to do my wedding pics because I'm gay.

Dude, leave me out your arguments with third parties if you can't be bothered to listen to what I say. We have already been through this. Ms. Nelson isn't refusing to photograph anyone's wedding because he's gay. If someone were to ask her to photograph a gay wedding, she would refuse because of what he wants her to photograph him doing, not because of what he is.

If photographers are licensed they should lose their license to do business. If a grocery is licensed it should lose it's license to do business.

And people care whether they have licenses because if they do business without one the state will punch them in the nose. I.e., their right to their nose ends where the state swings its license-pulling fist. Do you understand who's initiating the violence and who's on the receiving end?

(Note: I ask not to imply that this means the photographer should win -- libertarianism is not the law of the land -- but because earlier you loused up the fist/nose analogy.)

Presently discrimination is not to the degree where Jimmy Higgins hypothetical scenario is real but that should not matter legally. All it does is temporarily provide the courts with wiggle room to accommodate the racists and the bigots and the xenophobes, and keep a little bit of Jim Crow alive.

That's simply another way of saying that equality and fairness should be legally higher priority than freedom and nonviolence. That's a perfectly legitimate position to take, but it's not what the Constitution says. Freedom and nonviolence are in the Constitution; equality and fairness are statutory law; and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you want free speech rights to be trumped by legislators voting to define protected groups, then, legally, you need a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Bomb#20]

But racism is a bad thing. So you appear to be expressing the view that being without religious preference makes a person better than a person with a religious preference, simply because of religion. Going by your inference rule, that would appear to make you a racist.

I'm quite free to believe I'm the greatest and most gifted human being ever to grace this planet and that everyone and everything should bow to my wishes. What exactly does that have to do with the discussion?

Hey man, I'm just pointing out that your claim "Religious preference really is a form of racism" is illogical. If refuting your claim has nothing to do with the discussion, then your claim must have had nothing to do with the discussion. That's on you.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That means only that there's no practical way to enforce non-discrimination by consumers, not that there's a moral difference.

A moral difference in the discrimination? No.

Tell me, what do you think of people who refuse to patronise a restaurant because the chef/owners ethnicity does not match the 'cultural' background of the food in the restaurant they serve? Do you think they are bigots?

Possibly. Like, if a white dude was a sushi chef, and someone refused to eat there because white people can't make decent sushi, or they've decided it's culturally appropriative just by looking at him, then yes. He could have been born and raised in Japan. He could have studied under an elite Japanese chef or culinary institution. He could just be f'n awesome at sushi-making. Or he could be half-Japanese, but just appear very white to that customer.

 

[Metaphor]

That means only that there's no practical way to enforce non-discrimination by consumers, not that there's a moral difference.

A moral difference in the discrimination? No.

Tell me, what do you think of people who refuse to patronise a restaurant because the chef/owners ethnicity does not match the 'cultural' background of the food in the restaurant they serve? Do you think they are bigots?

Possibly. Like, if a white dude was a sushi chef, and someone refused to eat there because white people can't make decent sushi, or they've decided it's culturally appropriative just by looking at him, then yes. He could have been born and raised in Japan. He could have studied under an elite Japanese chef or culinary institution. He could just be f'n awesome at sushi-making. Or he could be half-Japanese, but just appear very white to that customer.

Not just refused to eat there, but had crowd-sourced Excel spreadsheets that documented the acceptable restaurants (chef/owners ethnicity 'match' the food served) versus unacceptable restaurants ("mismatch") that is circulated among the Woke.

I think these people are deranged morons whose philosophy is bigoted. But I also think their primary victims are themselves and they're entitled to spend their money how they want to.

I just extend that "you are crazy but I'm not going to force you to do anything" courtesy to service providers, not just service buyers.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Not just refused to eat there, but had crowd-sourced Excel spreadsheets that documented the acceptable restaurants (chef/owners ethnicity 'match' the food served) versus unacceptable restaurants ("mismatch") that is circulated among the Woke.

I think these people are deranged morons whose philosophy is bigoted. But I also think their primary victims are themselves and they're entitled to spend their money how they want to.

These people? If it is a real world case, I'd need to see what was actually being done.

I just extend that "you are crazy but I'm not going to force you to do anything" courtesy to service providers, not just service buyers.

Anything? Like following health and safety code and labour laws and stuff? Or by 'anything' do you mean specifically not discriminate in providing goods and services to the general public* when they chose to enter such a business or line of employment? I ask because ordinarily businesses have different obligations and responsibilities than customers in a number of areas. You can apply the word 'force' if you like, but it's not exceptional that businesses have requirements they need to meet to operate legally.

*not be compelled to something or other in your parlance, I guess?

 

[Metaphor]

These people? If it is a real world case, I'd need to see what was actually being done.

Oh yes, it's real. It's my burden (and, perhaps, relief) to say that I could not imagine the unhinged things the Woke get up to.

https://www.tastingtable.com/dine/n...rritos-cultural-appropriation-restaurant-list

In response, a Google Doc called "(Alternatives To) White-Owned Appropriative Restaurants in Portland" is now in circulation, featuring an extensive list of what the creators deem to be appropriative establishments in Portland. The list, which can be viewed here, offers the names of the business owners, as well as the nearest POC-owned dining alternative for each restaurant.

Anything? Like following health and safety code and labour laws and stuff? Or by 'anything' do you mean specifically not discriminate in providing goods and services to the general public* when they chose to enter such a business or line of employment? I ask because ordinarily businesses have different obligations and responsibilities than customers in a number of areas. You can apply the word 'force' if you like, but it's not exceptional that businesses have requirements they need to meet to operate legally.

*not be compelled to something or other in your parlance, I guess?

I don't think it's a problem for the State to say to restaurants "there shouldn't be cockroaches in your kitchen".

You cannot generally compel a business to "not discriminate"--you can only compel them to "not discriminate" on certain grounds. And I just cannot reconcile some of these.

On this board, we've had people arguing that sex workers have no right to discriminate on race or sex. That no sex worker could refuse a client of a particular race because of his race, and no sex worker could refuse a client of a particular sex just because of his sex. I found this flabbergasting. People are so against 'discrimination' on certain lines they are willing to compel people to have sex with people they don't want to (or face getting sued by the state and/or losing their right to sell their sex services). If I recall correctly "if you are a sex worker who allows women to suck your dick, you have to allow men to suck your dick too".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I could most definitely see myself doing that. No different from buying food from the same person. I wouldn't like it but I could definitely see myself having to do it.

I wouldn't. A wedding photographer isn't food. A wedding photographer does not have any bearing on survival.

I would enlist an amateur or friend to do the photography instead. I would encourage guests to take photos. But I wouldn't hand over money for somebody who didn't actually want to do it.

Maybe in some fantasy world, but the real world has people doing things they hate and despise, having to interact with people they hate and despise, doing jobs they hate and despise, giving money to people they hate and despise.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But racism is a bad thing. So you appear to be expressing the view that being without religious preference makes a person better than a person with a religious preference, simply because of religion. Going by your inference rule, that would appear to make you a racist.

I'm quite free to believe I'm the greatest and most gifted human being ever to grace this planet and that everyone and everything should bow to my wishes. What exactly does that have to do with the discussion?

Hey man, I'm just pointing out that your claim "Religious preference really is a form of racism" is illogical. If refuting your claim has nothing to do with the discussion, then your claim must have had nothing to do with the discussion. That's on you.

You fail to grasp the reality that what people believe and what people actually do are most often very different things. In short, beliefs don't matter without behavior that demonstrates same.

 

[Metaphor]

I could most definitely see myself doing that. No different from buying food from the same person. I wouldn't like it but I could definitely see myself having to do it.

I wouldn't. A wedding photographer isn't food. A wedding photographer does not have any bearing on survival.

I would enlist an amateur or friend to do the photography instead. I would encourage guests to take photos. But I wouldn't hand over money for somebody who didn't actually want to do it.

Maybe in some fantasy world, but the real world has people doing things they hate and despise, having to interact with people they hate and despise, doing jobs they hate and despise, giving money to people they hate and despise.

It's a fantasy world where not only are gays stuck with no professional wedding photographers, they also have no means of taking photos themselves, or enlisting amateur photographers, or asking their guests to take pictures?

There was no professional photographer at my parents' wedding. There are photos though. And this was in the 1970s when mobile phones were a sci-fi fantasy and cameras cost one million dollars.

 

[laughing dog]

Maybe in some fantasy world, but the real world has people doing things they hate and despise, having to interact with people they hate and despise, doing jobs they hate and despise, giving money to people they hate and despise.

It's a fantasy world where not only are gays stuck with no professional wedding photographers, they also have no means of taking photos themselves, or enlisting amateur photographers, or asking their guests to take pictures?

There was no professional photographer at my parents' wedding. There are photos though. And this was in the 1970s when mobile phones were a sci-fi fantasy and cameras cost one million dollars.

Cool fantasy ( camera’s did not cost one million dollars), Bro.

So instead of professionals in a market doing theor job, the market solution is to forego the market and force people to use amateurs because your parents did?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe in some fantasy world, but the real world has people doing things they hate and despise, having to interact with people they hate and despise, doing jobs they hate and despise, giving money to people they hate and despise.

It's a fantasy world where not only are gays stuck with no professional wedding photographers, they also have no means of taking photos themselves, or enlisting amateur photographers, or asking their guests to take pictures?

There was no professional photographer at my parents' wedding. There are photos though. And this was in the 1970s when mobile phones were a sci-fi fantasy and cameras cost one million dollars.

Cool fantasy ( camera’s did not cost one million dollars), Bro.

Sometimes I think Metaphor is collecting material for a novel.

 

[Metaphor]

Cool fantasy ( camera’s did not cost one million dollars), Bro.

I am surprised to learn cameras did not cost one million dollars. Thank you for correcting me.

So instead of professionals in a market doing theor job, the market solution is to forego the market and force people to use amateurs because your parents did?

Professionals in the market are doing their job and their are professionals who specialise in it.

 

[laughing dog]

Cool fantasy ( camera’s did not cost one million dollars), Bro.

I am surprised to learn cameras did not cost one million dollars. Thank you for correcting me.

You are most welcome. Happy to inject a dose of reality into your rants.

Professionals in the market are doing their job and their are professionals who specialise in it.

Not if their bigotry prevents from performing their service. Duh.

 

[Metaphor]

You are most welcome. Happy to inject a dose of reality into your rants.

I am so happy to learn cameras did not cost one million dollars in the 1970s. Looking back on it, I can't believe I ever thought that. Some people might have even interpreted my original statement as sarcastic.

 

[laughing dog]

You are most welcome. Happy to inject a dose of reality into your rants.

I am so happy to learn cameras did not cost one million dollars in the 1970s. Looking back on it, I can't believe I ever thought that. Some people might have even interpreted my original statement as sarcastic.

And the same people might have interpreted my statement as an acknowledgement of the ridiculousness of your sarcasm.