|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 01/23/2012 : 07:27:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
If a pattern of not serving atheists exists, then I agree that it is discriminatory. But if the reason boils down to "my customers wouldn't approve of me serving this particular atheist, so I won't," I'm not certain it qualifies as discrimination. But as you say, that's for the proper officials to decide. |
As I read them, the laws don't differentiate between individual and institutional discrimination. "I won't serve you in particular because you are an atheist, even though I serve other atheists" and "I won't serve atheists" are both illegal.
|
I think the point positied is that they were not saying that.
The point posited is "If I serve you, I get banged in the ass economically."
This is questionable, yet probably permissable. An establishment can refuse service to any one individual as long as it is not related to the civil rights legislation.
Just because it is spurred on by the extremism of his primary clinetelle does not mean necessarily that the florist holds those views.
There are, of course, plenty of discrimination cases in which it turned out that the plaintiff was denied service, housing or a job because he was a huge jerk, instead of because (he claimed) he was of a different race, religion or sex than the defendant. In such cases, no pattern will be found because none exists.
But the anti-discrimination laws protect individuals without the need for a pattern to be found.
Perhaps you're thinking of the big class-action discrimination suits against, say, Walmart, in which the plaintiffs' case asserts nothing more than a pattern of discrimination (which they then have to prove) without direct evidence against any individual. The "women get paid 80% less than men in the same positions" sort of cases.| Oh, it is different. For one, Jessica isn't a big name celebrity with several products sold under her name that can be easily boycotted. So instead people seem to be lashing out at anything remotely associated with her in an attempt to ostracize her from their community. It sucks and they're assholes. I'm just not convinced the florists who refused business have done anything illegal. |
If the florists knew the assholes were upset because of Ahlquist's atheism, then I think it's a pretty clear case of illegal discrimination.| The difference there was he posted a sign saying an entire group was unwelcome in his establishment due to the actions of a single individual. Had the owner put up a sign saying "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment," he may have been on firmer legal footing. |
He would have been just fine if he'd put up a sign saying, "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment because his voice grates on me." How one's voice affects others is not a protected class under the law. However, "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment because he's an atheist" is just as illegal as a sign reading "no atheists allowed." The actual sign made clear the religious discrimination. Your example sign is ambiguous, in that it reveals no motive, though one could be inferred from the geographical and chronological context, and left to the courts to investigate and decide. Which is what I'm doing with the florists in Rhode Island.
By the way, "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment because his voice grates on me" would be illegal if there were independent evidence that the excuse on the sign were a sham. Say an employee overheard a telephone call in which gelato guy tells someone that he's going to try to skirt around the Civil Rights Act by making up a story about Singleton's voice, when in reality he's denying service because of Singleton's blasphemy.
|
|
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 - 01/23/2012 : 07:55:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I think the point positied is that they were not saying that.
The point posited is "If I serve you, I get banged in the ass economically."
This is questionable, yet probably permissable. An establishment can refuse service to any one individual as long as it is not related to the civil rights legislation.
Just because it is spurred on by the extremism of his primary clinetelle does not mean necessarily that the florist holds those views. |
But he only got threatened economically because the recipient of the delivery is an atheist who successfully challenged a government-endorsed prayer. He's rolling over for religious bullies. I'm saying that the odds that he does not know that are minuscule, regardless of his own views.
How the hell did his clients even know about the delivery, within hours of him getting the call?
(Oh, and my mother-in-law says she has plenty of regular customers. People who want fresh flowers in their home or office every week. And the nearby Chick-Fil-A has bud vases on every table, and get their flowers from mom. Just a couple of examples.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2012 : 09:48:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I think the point positied is that they were not saying that.
The point posited is "If I serve you, I get banged in the ass economically."
This is questionable, yet probably permissable. An establishment can refuse service to any one individual as long as it is not related to the civil rights legislation.
Just because it is spurred on by the extremism of his primary clinetelle does not mean necessarily that the florist holds those views. |
But he only got threatened economically because the recipient of the delivery is an atheist who successfully challenged a government-endorsed prayer. He's rolling over for religious bullies. I'm saying that the odds that he does not know that are minuscule, regardless of his own views.
How the hell did his clients even know about the delivery, within hours of him getting the call?
(Oh, and my mother-in-law says she has plenty of regular customers. People who want fresh flowers in their home or office every week. And the nearby Chick-Fil-A has bud vases on every table, and get their flowers from mom. Just a couple of examples.)
|
So, Betty Bowers from the local Shi'a Baptists overhears the call coming in and issues a Call To The Righteous(tm) to threaten boycott.
And Chick-Fil-A is a Christian centric resturaunt. In 1982, their company purpose statement clearly states "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/FAQ#?category=12
How many of those bud vases would be filled by other suppliers?
|
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 - 01/23/2012 : 11:09:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
And Chick-Fil-A is a Christian centric resturaunt. |
I know, I was just giving an example (more for H.) of the sort of regular customers a florist might have, since he was wondering about that. |
- 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 - 01/23/2012 : 12:02:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I know, I was just giving an example (more for H.) of the sort of regular customers a florist might have, since he was wondering about that.
|
Well, my point was that most of the people making the threats to withhold their floral business probably aren't regular customers anyway, not that florists don't have regular customers. I'd bet that the average person probably only buys flowers for a few occasions a year, tops. Still, it's mostly an irrelevant point, since we don't know how many of the complainers are regular customers, or what economic impact their boycott may have on florists' profit margins.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2012 : 17:38:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, one of the florists refused ostensibly because of the extra hassles involved:Raymond Santilli, owner of Flowers by Santilli... says the [Freedom From Religion] foundation told him the delivery person might need police protection and to show identification to gain access to the home. However:Santilli said he had his own personal feelings about the issue, and because it's his shop, he can choose to deliver or not deliver to whomever he wants. No, he's quite wrong about that, as detailed earlier in this thread. So is Marina Plowman of Twins Florist:"I'm independent owner and I can choose whoever I want, whenever I want," said Plowman. But Plowman also said,...part of the reason why she rejected the order was because of the warning [about police protection and showing ID] that came with it. But the FFRF's complaint is only against Plowman, who allegedly replied to the delivery request with a terse "I will not deliver to this person."
SNIP
|
So, it seems that maybe Plowman was maybe not a bigot herself, perhaps but just a coward and didn't want to go to the trouble?
Ok, never mind.
Still, the people who went nuts over this and frightened the florists were, in my opinion, fundies. After all, why else would they really give a shit? |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2012 : 18:07:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Still, the people who went nuts over this and frightened the florists were, in my opinion, fundies. After all, why else would they really give a shit?
|
Well you are using a very distorted and personal definition of a fundamentalist for one thing. In and odd turn it is actually we who are asking for a strict interpretation of the only doctrine (the constitution) involved.
But I had the clear idea, that it could have been the people ordering the flowers who frightened her (and the others) with their warnings of needing police protection, media presence, etc,. By that it seems entirely possible that FFR were trying to provoke a negative reaction they could then complain was discrimination. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened, when the state does it we call it entrapment.
fundamentalism |#716;f#601;nd#601;#712;mentl#716;iz#601;m|
noun
a form of Protestant Christianity that upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, including its narratives, doctrines, prophecies, and moral laws.
• strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology, notably Islam.
ETA a couple interesting factoids. First "All the way from Connecticut" appears to be about 20 miles. A search of Florists in Cranston Rhode Island yields significantly more florists than 4. Hmmm BS detector activated. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/23/2012 18:46:21 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2012 : 19:47:29 [Permalink]
|
| To me, one doesn't have to be a protestant to be a fundamentalist...one just has to take whatever their religion is to the extreme. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2012 : 21:02:19 [Permalink]
|
Only by your rather strange, divisive, no-true-Scotsman-esque definition. Not by any common use, dictionary or encyclopedia. The common use word for what you are calling fundamentalism is actually extremism, though it in itself is problematic, in that it is almost always used as adhominem dismissal, and so does not have very much argumentative power and does not lend itself well to reasoned discourse.
Indeed the term extremist has in my experience been used by "skeptical" political liberals to mock constitutionalists on issues like gun control or states rights - that is people who insist on strict adherence to the clear text of the constitution, which again is what we are doing now.
However I also do not think the term applies here as the extreme (aka as fringe) view is clearly the lone student's. The popular view seems to be that the prayer should be allowed to remain in place. This is actually a great example of why argument ad populum is not sound reason, while the individual on the extreme happens to have been shown to currently have the correct legal view of the issue.
extremist |ik#712;str#275;mist|
noun
a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action : political extremists | [as adj. ] an extremist conspiracy. See note at zealot . |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/23/2012 21:12:40 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2012 : 18:33:41 [Permalink]
|
| Huh? The "lone student"'s view is "extreme"? For wanting the school to abide by the nation's constitution? No, the extreme views are those who feel that their religion should have a priveleged place in their society above the constitution of their own nation and who have hounded the hell out of the one student there who gives a shit about her own country's constitution. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2012 : 18:49:02 [Permalink]
|
| You only say that because you are a constitutional fundamentalist. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2012 : 19:25:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Huh? The "lone student"'s view is "extreme"? For wanting the school to abide by the nation's constitution? No, the extreme views are those who feel that their religion should have a priveleged place in their society above the constitution of their own nation and who have hounded the hell out of the one student there who gives a shit about her own country's constitution.
|
Well first I think you are adding a lot of in-evident bias to the side you don't like, probably in an attempt to either poison their well or make yours look sweeter. But that is common in primates.
However we can only measure extreme in comparison to what is centrist. In that we can only measure it in terms of the community. It seems obvious (though I admit I have not done a proper statistical survey) that the one girl is far outnumbered in her community so yes she has an extremist position.
In Afghanistan the strict sharia adherent is not the extremist, they are the norm. The extremist is the democratic liberal.
You appear to be the one claiming that extremism is always a pejorative term. Not me.You also appear to think fundamentalism is always a perforative, and is exclusive to "religious" people you disagree with. However, taken at its defined value you (the claimant and the judge as well) are the fundamentalists in this argument. (ETA: Actually I made a grave error here. The judges decisions were thoughtful, nuanced and referred to a significant history of case law, they can not be considered constitutional fundamentalism).
These are not me, calling you and them names, they are just the actual facts of the case. Sometimes extremists are a good thing (hate to bring it up ) Rosa Parks was a extremist. Sometimes adhering to fundamental doctrine is the best policy, though in that I would add that to do some one must provide ample sound reasoning (as the judge did). That does not make the position less extreme or the ruling less fundamentalist, that just shows that these are not always the naughty words you think they are.
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/24/2012 23:05:56 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2012 : 21:14:10 [Permalink]
|
Ok, so you have your own definition of "extremist" going on here. Sure, she's outnumbered, but her view is the view that actually supports their own constitution. If things have reached a point in the states where that is considered "extreme" then holy shit, it's gotten bad down there!
And no, "fundamentalism" is not something that is exclusive to religious people. Weren't you the one who said earlier that fundamentalism applies only to protestants? I pointed out that it can apply to others as well. It can apply to religious, political, or other views. It's a mindset where one is absolutely certain that they are right and won't consider any evidence to the contrary. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2012 : 21:37:47 [Permalink]
|
RTFP. I never said that, you have twice though. It was the first of two definitions provided by the OED, not that they would be a place to refer in discussion of the meaning of language. They also quite clearly defined extremism which fits my use of the term perfectly. It is you in this discussion who have bandied about these terms without proper use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism
Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards.[citation needed] In democratic societies, individuals or groups that advocate the replacement of democracy with an authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists, in authoritarian societies the opposite applies. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/24/2012 21:39:56 |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2012 : 21:48:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
"fundamentalism" ... [is] a mindset where one is absolutely certain that they are right and won't consider any evidence to the contrary.
|
No you are clearly wrong and using a self-made definition. Fundamentalism specifically refers to doctrine as the supreme and inerrant authority.
Since you didn't appear to understand the simple dictionary definition I give you the expanded wikipedia reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/24/2012 23:00:10 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How fundies react when they don't get their way
