|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2012 : 19:57:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Uh what? Zero religious references? Isn't the fact that they're all getting bent out of shape because she pointed out that the xian god in that banner was unconstitutional evidence enough?
As for the florists, come on. What other motive could there be?
|
Zero religious reference from the florists. And it could be simply economics. Indeed it is sufficient and most likely, given that one of them noted the possible negative press. In a free society, why must these business people be conscripted to work on behalf of an atheist organization if they choose not to be? |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/19/2012 19:59:40 |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 20:49:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
But Ig the burden here is on you and Myers to show religious motivation and fundamentalist religious motivation at that. We have zero religious references in why they refused to deliver. We have one reference saying they will not deliver to that person with no comment on why. We have two others who declined the order without comment, and one who declined to avoid media controversy. Nope no evidence of fundamentalism there, unless you are using a sort of reverse of the no true Scotsman argument to call anyone who does not support your point to be a fundie.
|
The Cranston florists were certainly in a quandary, forced to make a delicate ethical decision they did not ask for, and one they ultimately blew. Much the same sort of moral squeeze lifted its unwanted but inevitable head in the 1950s in America.
I maintain that delivering the flowers would have been the default, neutral position for any florist. In this case, doing nothing is not neutral. Each florist chose the (probably very rare) position of not doing what they are in business to do.
This compares to refusing service to black people in a 1950's Southern diner. Like the segregation-era diner owners, the florists may or may not have been motivated by their own bigotry. (Some probably were motivated by their own bigotry, some probably by fear of bigots.) But in terms of ethics/morals, both the diner owners and the florists sided with the bigots when the shit hit the fan.
Yeah, moral decisions are sometimes tough, but these florists sided with pure evil. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/19/2012 20:54:23 |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2012 : 21:32:36 [Permalink]
|
| Hmm having run small retail businesses of my own now for many years, and knowing full well what a very complicated and frustrating thing that is in the best of circumstances, I can thankfully say I am in no position to adequately judge the decisions of these business people or proclaim with any degree of surety how I would have acted. I have very little fact to go on, and all that decidedly biased. But have at it if it pleases you. Oddly I find that to be a similar jumping to conclusions and circling the wagons to what I would ascribe as the general problem with the side supporting the maintenance of this piece of religious artwork in a public school. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 04:38:34 [Permalink]
|
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
It is simply naive to think that "we will not deliver flowers to Ahlquist" isn't followed (at least mentally) by "because she is an atheist." That would ignore the entire context of the controversy. And the law doesn't allow for religious discrimination because one's normal clientele are bullies. The Warwick florist who said that he wouldn't deliver specifically because he'd lose some of his customers is in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
That's why the FRFF is referring the refusing florists to the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, according to which:It is the function of the Commission pursuant to the law to enforce the General Laws of Rhode Island, Title 28, Chapter 5; Title 28, Chapter 5.1; Title 34, Chapter 37; Title 11, Chapter 24; Title 42, Chapter 87; Title 40, Chapter 9.1 and Title 23, Chapter 6, Sections 22 - 23 which prohibit discrimination because of:
...
C) Race, color, religion, country of ancestral origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age (over eighteen years) in the field of public accommodations... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 05:57:32 [Permalink]
|
| While internet blog heresay appears enough to convict them all on SFN, it is a good thing this is not a court of law. The law (rightly) has a much higher bar which begins with the presumption of innocence, and then demands a much stricter acceptance of what is considered evidence. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 06:20:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
The law (rightly) has a much higher bar which begins with the presumption of innocence, and then demands a much stricter acceptance of what is considered evidence. |
Direct quotes from the florist aren't good enough? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 06:41:45 [Permalink]
|
| Hey it's your Kangaroo Court, who am I to say what justice is like here? |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/20/2012 06:42:04 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 07:19:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
But Ig the burden here is on you and Myers to show religious motivation and fundamentalist religious motivation at that. We have zero religious references in why they refused to deliver. We have one reference saying they will not deliver to that person with no comment on why. We have two others who declined the order without comment, and one who declined to avoid media controversy. Nope no evidence of fundamentalism there, unless you are using a sort of reverse of the no true Scotsman argument to call anyone who does not support your point to be a fundie.
|
I would say that a vast majority of these places declined to do so for economic reasons.
Specifically, they believed that the press would get hold of the story and their fundie customers (some of them fundie churches) would stop doing business with them. Some of the responses were breif. "I will not deliver to this person" devoid any indication what the person's unvoiced underlying objection does not a anti-atheist make.
The shop that did deliver, "Glimpse of Gaia", is named in such a way that fundies would be unlikely to be major customers. I suspect from the general layout of the shop and the clothing choices of the propieters that they may be Neo-pagan, Hethenists, Fam-trad kitchen witches, or Buddhists. In that case, their clientelle would likely not give a tinkers damn about who they do business with.
FCRA may not apply to this case because the discrimination is likely based on impact to future business. When a business is threatened by people voicing their 1st Amendment rights and the prospect of loosing a lot of commerce, they sometimes have to make painful decisions.
Whomever doesn't get their way is likely to be pissed and be vocal in the paper about it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 08:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Hey it's your Kangaroo Court, who am I to say what justice is like here? |
Hey, I'm not calling for these people to be publicly hanged. A complaint has been made with the office that investigates such things and enforces the law. It's their call. The evidence provided was good enough to warrant such a complaint. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 09:34:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]Originally posted by chefcrsh
The evidence provided was good enough to warrant such a complaint.
|
OK but you do know that evidence is not "weighed" by any legal authority, when a person or group makes a decision to lodge a complaint, right? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 10:34:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It is simply naive to think that "we will not deliver flowers to Ahlquist" isn't followed (at least mentally) by "because she is an atheist." |
Is it? Have they delivered flowers to atheists in the past? Are there other atheists they refuse to deliver to, or is it just Jessica Ahlquist? Does refusing to serve a single person necessarily constitute discrimination against a protected class of people? I don't think it's so clear cut. Many people in her community seem to hate her for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. They just think she's an attention-seeking troublemaker.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/20/2012 10:40:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 11:56:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
OK but you do know that evidence is not "weighed" by any legal authority, when a person or group makes a decision to lodge a complaint, right? |
"It's their call" ("they" being the Rhode Island Commission on Human Rights) summed that up rather nicely, I thought.Originally posted by H. Humbert
Many people in her community seem to hate her for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. They just think she's an attention-seeking troublemaker. |
How many people would announce to a business owner their intention to boycott that business because it opts to make a dime or two off a third party who wants to send something nice to someone who the potential boycotter thinks nothing more than a brat? I mean, I've heard of people filing some absurdly trivial lawsuits, but at least "getting money" was at the far end of that process. This buy-flowers-elsewhere stuff must be orders of magnitude more spiteful, since (if followed through) it does nothing but inconvenience the people making those threats, since they'll presumably be spending the same amount of flower money at a different florist. Does that level of overt hostility generally attach to "attention-seeking troublemakers?" Or does that florist tend to cater to extreme haters? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 12:20:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
How many people would announce to a business owner their intention to boycott that business because it opts to make a dime or two off a third party who wants to send something nice to someone who the potential boycotter thinks nothing more than a brat? |
Lots. Have you ever read the comments on any article about Kim Kardashian or Kate Gosling? People love to hate. The amount of venom spewed toward females perceived as "attention seekers" usually runs pretty high.
| I mean, I've heard of people filing some absurdly trivial lawsuits, but at least "getting money" was at the far end of that process. This buy-flowers-elsewhere stuff must be orders of magnitude more spiteful, since (if followed through) it does nothing but inconvenience the people making those threats, since they'll presumably be spending the same amount of flower money at a different florist. |
While most people voicing threats of a boycott probably have no intention of carrying it through (how often does the average person buy flowers anyway?), I'm not sure it even matters. Even if most people in Jessica's community dislike her because of her atheism, that doesn't mean the florists who wouldn't deliver to her refused service on the basis of her atheism.
| Does that level of overt hostility generally attach to "attention-seeking troublemakers?" Or does that florist tend to cater to extreme haters? |
It's trivially easy to rile the average "values voter" American. Here's a random sampling of comments from a Huffington Post article about Kim Kardashian suing the Gap for using her likeness:
| There is no defending her reputation. She has already shown everyone just what kind of pariah she is. |
| How does she defend being a huge w-h-o-r-e, we have the video proof already. |
| Reputation? You mean being a talentless, self-centered, greedy, brainless tramp? |
| what a dumb Who*e, kim is |
| REPUTATION? She is a SLUT just like the rest of the females in her family, including her MOTHER!! |
| The Kardashians are money hungry, selfish and always in a crisis! I won't buy anything or watch anything that involves them! |
There's even a website called Boycott Kim Kardashian which boasts half a million signatures.
So, yeah. This level of hostility is exceedingly common.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/20/2012 12:25:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 13:22:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
| I mean, I've heard of people filing some absurdly trivial lawsuits, but at least "getting money" was at the far end of that process. This buy-flowers-elsewhere stuff must be orders of magnitude more spiteful, since (if followed through) it does nothing but inconvenience the people making those threats, since they'll presumably be spending the same amount of flower money at a different florist. |
While most people voicing threats of a boycott probably have no intention of carrying it through (how often does the average person buy flowers anyway?)... |
My mother-in-law is a florist, and has a bunch of regular customers. I think they tend to be people in offices who want fresh flowers in the reception area at all times (for example). I'll ask again, though.| ...I'm not sure it even matters. Even if most people in Jessica's community dislike her because of her atheism, that doesn't mean the florists who wouldn't deliver to her refused service on the basis of her atheism. |
If religious bullies are pushing the florist to not serve an atheist on the basis of her atheism, then yes, the florist is refusing to serve an atheist because of her atheism. The reason would boil down to, "my customers wouldn't approve of me serving atheists, so I won't."
I doubt that anyone who threatens the florist about taking their business elsewhere is not telling him why.| Does that level of overt hostility generally attach to "attention-seeking troublemakers?" Or does that florist tend to cater to extreme haters? |
It's trivially easy to rile the average "values voter" American. Here's a random sampling of comments from a Huffington Post article about Kim Kardashian suing the Gap for using her likeness:
| There is no defending her reputation. She has already shown everyone just what kind of pariah she is. |
| How does she defend being a huge w-h-o-r-e, we have the video proof already. |
| Reputation? You mean being a talentless, self-centered, greedy, brainless tramp? |
| what a dumb Who*e, kim is |
| REPUTATION? She is a SLUT just like the rest of the females in her family, including her MOTHER!! |
| The Kardashians are money hungry, selfish and always in a crisis! I won't buy anything or watch anything that involves them! |
There's even a website called Boycott Kim Kardashian which boasts half a million signatures.
So, yeah. This level of hostility is exceedingly common. |
But they don't seem to be boycotting people who are just selling services to the Kardashians. Is anyone saying anything like, "I'm not going to get my gas at Exxon anymore because that bitch Kim does"?
This florist isn't even taking Ahlquist's money.
In other words, there seems to be a big difference in terms of how the hostility is playing out, here. What are these people going to do next? Refuse to re-hire the kid down the street to mow their lawns because the kid's uncle was paid by the state to teach Ahlquist (and a zillion other kids) 5th-grade math? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 14:44:38 [Permalink]
|
And let me say that while I don't know enough about the Kardashians to peg a motivation to the hatred, there's a clear motive where Jessica Ahlquist is concerned. It was clear in the school's hearings about whether to leave the mural up or not, and it's clear in many of the abusive messages Ahlquist has received since a judge trumped their feelings of religious entitlement with the Constitution. I don't know why anyone here would jump from the obvious to a "maybe the florist's customer were not motivated by religion when they threatened him" sort of excuse-making for this guy.
It's quite possible that the florist himself doesn't understand that his caving in to his bullying customers might be illegal religious discrimination. (The gelato guy near Skepticon this year didn't seem to get it at first, either.) The florist seemed only interested in his bottom line, and perhaps he'd sing a different tune if it were pointed out to him that certain principles - enshrined in in both state and Federal laws - need to be followed regardless of his wallet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How fundies react when they don't get their way
