Non-violent dissent catch-all

SpacePPoliceman:

Isn't that what I said? We approve of discriminating against people we don't like, for doing actions we don't like? You simply elaborated the reasons for why you approve of one action and not the other. The side you are fighting against are doing the same thing - only they discriminate against people they don't like, for doing actions they don't like.

And, by the by, please don't assume that I find homosexual activity uncomfortable, or that I am against gay marriage (and presuming to refute the argument by attacking my person). Don't fall into the ad hominem fallacy - it happens too often around these parts.

Aww, but you knew all that! Instead, I'll ask this: Stacey is on record as hatefully ignorant (and spreading dangerous falsehoods about a incurable disease, to boot). How do you know your hypothetical men are having sex? Bit of the voyeur, eh?

I stipulated that the hypothetical men avow to it vociferously, and would demonstrate, given the opportunity.

The Next to Last Word is this: You've failed, again, to make the case they're equivalent. Have a good one!

The Last Word is this: Someone invoking philosophical logic ought know that just because someone says something, doesn't mean you know it.

LarryC wrote:

I stipulated that the hypothetical men avow to it vociferously, and would demonstrate, given the opportunity.

If they started to have sex in your restaurant, it's totally reasonable to refuse them service. A truly equivalent situation would be if a gay senator was trying to pass a law that actively discriminated against heterosexuals came into your straight-friendly restaurant. An equivalent situation for your hypothetical one would be kicking an ugly couple out of your restaurant because you disapprove of ugly people having sex. In your hypothetical situation, I think you'd legally be in the clear in Tennessee (they don't have a non-discrimination law for sexual orientation), but a giant douche.
Let's set aside his dangerous ideas about HIV/AIDS, because frankly, people are allowed to believe dangerously stupid things. Let's look solely at the actions being discriminated in each case. The hypothetical gay couple's action is nobodies business but their own. Now, if they won't shut up about how they're always having gay sex at the drop of the hat, or they're otherwise making a big public disturbance about it, you can ask them to leave. If they're quietly talking to themselves about it, and you just happen to overhear it, you can't (well, you probably could in TN, but it'd be wrong). The actions of Sen. Campfield threatens to harm all gay people, and everyone involved in the education system of Tennessee, and is therefore the business of everyone in Tennessee. The two actions being discriminated aren't the same, the harm being inflicted isn't the same, so the two situations aren't equivalent.

You can ask anyone to leave, for any reason. You can disagree with their lifestyle, their speech, their awful hair cut, whatever you feel like. However, you won't have a legal leg to stand on in an ensuing lawsuit if you throw out people for certain reasons (gender, race, orientation, disability, age, income, marital status, probably a few others). If you toss out all of the gay people, that is going to be a legal problem for you. If you toss out Bill and Tom because they are getting all touchy-feely in a booth, then you have a reason that should stand up in court.

The system being referenced is, as I understand it, based primarily on civil lawsuits brought by the 'wronged' party. If the plaintiffs have documentation/evidence that shows you threw them out for one of the reasons I listed above, you are likely to face court orders, fines, etc. If they have insufficient proof, or you have evidence to show that they were thrown out for a non-protected reason, then you are likely to suffer no consequence. Sample case.

Stengah:

Here's how that breaks down:

You are saying that I cannot draw a parallel because one action harms others, and the other does not. Why is that difference significant?

Is it not because you disapprove of actions that harm others?

If this is the key difference, then it is just as I stated: you and SpacePPoliceman are insisting on a difference because one action meets with your approval, and the other does not. In what way is this inaccurate?

EDIT:

Just to be perfectly, perfectly clear, your position is that it's okay to discriminate against people for particular reasons, so long as those reasons meet your morals. My position is that it is not - that it is never okay.

Malor wrote:

Well, it is true that anal sex transmits AIDS much more readily than vaginal, so gay males do suffer disproportionately. That doesn't make it a 'gay' disease, but conservatives love to paint it that way.

The vast majority of people with AIDS are heterosexual. None of what you say above is wrong, since you're dealing with percentages,so I'm just strengthening your position that it is not a "gay" disease.

LarryC wrote:

Just to be perfectly, perfectly clear, your position is that it's okay to discriminate against people for particular reasons, so long as those reasons meet your morals. My position is that it is not - that it is never okay.

That's essentially the rub. I think the stance that humans shouldn't use the actions of others as a means of judgment is laughable, if not downright impossible. So I do think discriminating between individuals using their actions as a basis is not only acceptable, but morally correct. Sure, you can play fast and loose with moral relativism and claim the act of hate speech is an action just as beautiful as painting a picture, or the act of burning down a house is just as beautiful as paying with cash vs credit card. I happen to disagree.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult, apparently, to explain the difference between actions and people.. I say this because you B&B example confuses the two.

Again, to clarify. It's wrong to judge an individual based on the group to which they belong. But if a business ejects a black woman for stealing, or a white man for hate speech, or a gay man for vandalism, or a filipino for domestic violence, that is an unrelated issue.

And I really don't think you're being honest with yourself when you claim not judging others based on their actions is laudable. I say this based on your previously posted ideas on child education.

Of course, I would like to clarify that your own means of judging others and discriminating against them is founded on your morality. Is this so? Because if it is, then I would like to point out that the B&Bers who judge and discriminate are acting according to this principle, only their morality is slightly different.

You and they are similar in the fundamentals, you simply disagree on targeting.

For my part I think that is it not only possible to act without judgment and to withhold from judging others, but that doing so is laudable. Of course, my moraliy is what's telling me that.

Outside that, it simply strikes me as logical that the more effective and the more uniform method of getting rid of discrimination is to get rid of all of it, not just the ones we disapprove of. This is based on the understanding that we cannot dictate every little detail of everyone's morality and that we shouldn't do so.

With all due respect, Seth, you didn't understand what I said about child education, so you probably shouldn't be referring to my position on it in any way, since you don't know what it is.

It is true that the B&Bers are not being legally sensible about their anti-gay practices, but I'm sure you can think up ways how they can justify that discrimination based on observable action.

I understood your ideas on how to treat children just fine, Larry, although this thread is likely not a prudent place to rehash them.

And yes, since instances of direct disrimination have all but evaporated in this country, most anti discrimination law firms rely on indirect evidence to prove cases. Many employ a large number of undercover employees who attempt to establish a pattern of discrimination. Can you explain the relevancy of this to standing up to a bully in one's own restaurant?

Seth:

1. Yes, this is not the thread to rehash that. I'm simply reiterating my request not to misrepresent me since I am quite certain that what you understood and what I believe in are markedly different. I can resupply the material on request, Seth, so you don't have to speak for me, and particularly, I ask that you don't when you're being negative about it and I am telling you you got me wrong.

2. I have to argue that the case being discussed in this very thread argue that instances of direct discrimination are common in your country, and I would additionally argue that it is so because there are people such as yourself, who fervently believe in the morality of discrimination, and support it.

The senator in question was not being disruptive, and he is using his power doing what he thinks is right - just as you are. The B&Bers are doing the same thing. It's not bullying, unless you describe what you support as itself, bullying.

Of course, I am also convinced that the way to stop bullying is to stop it wholesale, not simply to change the bullies to people who are friendly to us.

I see you still haven't grasped the difference between actions and people. Whether this is my failing as a communicator or yours is irrelevant; it makes further discourse fruitless.

It may prove a lost cause, but I'll give re-railing the thread a shot.

The first time equivalence made an appearance in this thread was in SpacePPoliceman's "Ah, False Equivalence" post. I'm not making the argument that Martha Boggs is just as bad as Stacey Campbell, any more than I'm making the argument that kicking a serial killer in the face makes you just as bad as they are. Expressing disapproval towards an action doesn't mean that all actions I disapprove of are equally bad.

muttonchop wrote:

Hating homosexuals isn't a "political belief".

Simple hatred? Arguably not. But of course Sen. Campbell's politics (particularly, his politics of discrimination) are the focal point here. The Bistro at the Bijou's statement that "I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discrimanted against." makes this fairly explicit.

I'm not sure how to rephrase my objections better, but I'll recap.

Using discrimination as part of taking a public stand against discrimination undermines your case. NB: it does not make you equally bad. It does, however, turn the conversation from one of principle "it's not okay to discriminate against individuals" to one of opinion "it's not okay to discriminate against individuals I like". I think the sparring over LarryC's example shows the latter is rarely productive.

There's also the question of outcome. If the goal is to undermine bigotry and promote tolerance (something I support), is it likely that Sen. Campfield will take this as a wake-up call and turn his heart towards treating his fellow humans with kindness? Or is it perhaps more likely that Sen. Campfield will treat it as more grist for his homophobic agenda, and a fundraising opportunity demonstrating that gays are out to destroy America?

I agree that the question of "how can we constructively respond to bigotry" is a difficult one. I don't think that Martha Boggs' decision here was a great one, but I understand where she's coming from. (Indeed, were I in her shoes, I would have been sorely tempted to do something similar). But, when I'm faced with situations like this, where someone I detest is treated in a way that is perhaps borderline, I try to imagine whether my opinion would be different if it was someone I liked (say, a gay-rights advocate who was refused service). If my opinion on whether the treatment is justified changes based on whether or not I like the person, it's often a good sign that my bias is showing.

So that it hopefully doesn't come across as me just poo-pooing the choices of others: my suggestion from the Prop 8 thread for a constructive alternative to refusing service was to let Sen. Campbell know that the entirety of his bill would be donated to PFLAG (or some other gay-friendly charity).

double post.

removing this paragraph because it's an example of bad reading comprehension. Sorry, Dimmerswitch.

I'm not sure how to rephrase my objections better, but I'll recap.

Using discrimination as part of taking a public stand against discrimination undermines your case. NB: it does not make you equally bad. It does, however, turn the conversation from one of principle "it's not okay to discriminate against individuals" to one of opinion "it's not okay to discriminate against individuals I like". I think the sparring over LarryC's example shows the latter is rarely productive.

With the exception of this thread, I (anecdote alert) don't see that happening. What I do see is an incident that has really brought into focus the negative consequences of spewing hate speech.

There's also the question of outcome. If the goal is to undermine bigotry and promote tolerance (something I support), is it likely that Sen. Campfield will take this as a wake-up call and turn his heart towards treating his fellow humans with kindness? Or is it perhaps more likely that Sen. Campfield will treat it as more grist for his homophobic agenda, and a fundraising opportunity demonstrating that gays are out to destroy America?

I agree that the question of "how can we constructively respond to bigotry" is a difficult one. I don't think that Martha Boggs' decision here was a great one, but I understand where she's coming from. (Indeed, were I in her shoes, I would have been sorely tempted to do something similar). But, when I'm faced with situations like this, where someone I detest is treated in a way that is perhaps borderline, I try to imagine whether my opinion would be different if it was someone I liked (say, a gay-rights advocate who was refused service). If my opinion on whether the treatment is justified changes based on whether or not I like the person, it's often a good sign that my bias is showing.

So that it hopefully doesn't come across as me just poo-pooing the choices of others: my suggestion from the Prop 8 thread for a constructive alternative to refusing service was to let Sen. Campbell know that the entirety of his bill would be donated to PFLAG (or some other gay-friendly charity).

I would hope that people are biased against hate speech. as Hypatian said earlier, discrimination is not itself immoral; it is the method by which people discriminate that can be immoral, which is why it's such a complex topic. I understand the desire to avoid the complexity by trying never to make distinctions (or ignoring the existence of race, which I think is related), but that decision renders impotent an otherwise nonviolent means of fighting bigotry.

And it's that last part that I am uncomfortable with. I think your solution of donating his money to a gay friendly charity is also acceptable, but nowhere near as powerful as what Boggs did.

Sigh.

I'm not sure what it is about this topic that's making people respond to arguments I'm not making. The kicking in the face throwaway line was to show another equivalence argument I'm not making. What'd I'd said was

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I'm not making the argument that Martha Boggs is just as bad as Stacey Campbell, any more than I'm making the argument that kicking a serial killer in the face makes you just as bad as they are. Expressing disapproval towards an action doesn't mean that all actions I disapprove of are equally bad.

Seth wrote:

I would hope that people are biased against hate speech. as Hypatian said earlier, discrimination is not itself immoral; it is the method by which people discriminate that can be immoral, which is why it's such a complex topic. I understand the desire to avoid the complexity by trying never to make distinctions (or ignoring the existence of race, which I think is related), but that decision renders impotent an otherwise nonviolent means of fighting bigotry.

And it's that last part that I am uncomfortable with. I think your solution of donating his money to a gay friendly charity is also acceptable, but nowhere near as powerful as what Boggs did.

My argument for consistency is not out of a desire to avoid complexity, and I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I'm also confused by the way you seem to be conflating this with something like the Montgomery Bus boycotts or the Lunch Room sit-ins. If this were a gay-rights advocate being refused service from a restaurant because the proprietor disagreed with his politics and thought he was a toxic and destructive influence in their community, would you be equally supportive? If not, then I think you need to make a case for why one's okay but not the other that isn't just a variation on "I like the gay-rights advocate".

The kicking in the face thing was me utterly failing to read. My sincere apologies, Dimmerswitch.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I'm also confused by the way you seem to be conflating this with something like the Montgomery Bus boycotts or the Lunch Room sit-ins. If this were a gay-rights advocate being refused service from a restaurant because the proprietor disagreed with his politics and thought he was a toxic and destructive influence in their community, would you be equally supportive? If not, then I think you need to make a case for why one's okay but not the other that isn't just a variation on "I like the gay-rights advocate".

I am trying to understand what you're trying to say because I know you are very much not a moral relativist, but when I read that paragraph above that is where I arrive.

IF the gay rights advocate regularly spews hate speech, I definitely think he should be ejected from a restaurant owned by the target of his hate speech. We should judge actions, not people.

I know you're not trying to say that bigots should be given a free pass for hate speech. I just don't see why a restaurant (which may cater to the gay community, I'm not sure) should be forced to serve a man whose actions not 48 hours previous were toxic.

Seth wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

I'm also confused by the way you seem to be conflating this with something like the Montgomery Bus boycotts or the Lunch Room sit-ins. If this were a gay-rights advocate being refused service from a restaurant because the proprietor disagreed with his politics and thought he was a toxic and destructive influence in their community, would you be equally supportive? If not, then I think you need to make a case for why one's okay but not the other that isn't just a variation on "I like the gay-rights advocate".

I am trying to understand what you're trying to say because I know you are very much not a moral relativist, but when I read that paragraph above that is where I arrive.

IF the gay rights advocate regularly spews hate speech, I definitely think he should be ejected from a restaurant owned by the target of his hate speech. We should judge actions, not people.

I know you're not trying to say that bigots should be given a free pass for hate speech. I just don't see why a restaurant (which may cater to the gay community, I'm not sure) should be forced to serve a man whose actions not 48 hours previous were toxic.

Would you be equally supportive of a restaurant refusing to serve a gay-rights advocate because they think his actions are toxic and/or immoral?

And, since it's another argument I'm not making that folks are responding to: I am not arguing that the Bistro on the Bijou should be forced to serve Sen. Campbell, or anyone who isn't part of a legally-protected class. I acknowledged previously that their refusal of service is almost-certainly legal.

My objections are moral and tactical. I don't believe it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their political beliefs, even if I personally find those beliefs toxic. I also don't believe that the Bistro at the Bijou refusing Sen. Campbell is likely to undermine bigotry or promote tolerance. Donating his bill to a gay-rights charity, or organizing a "Stacy Days" festival fundraiser to do education and advocacy while raising money for gay rights would have been much more constructive, in my view.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Would you be equally supportive of a restaurant refusing to serve a gay-rights advocate because they think his actions are toxic and/or immoral?

Depends on the action. Hate speech is unacceptable and should be confronted. Dropping a fork on the ground is different.

I wonder if maybe you're approaching this from a more universal basis, that discriminating based on one action opens the door for others to discriminate based on *any* action. That is not what I am saying, my argument is specific to this incident.

My objections are moral and tactical. I don't believe it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their political beliefs, even if I personally find those beliefs toxic. I also don't believe that the Bistro at the Bijou refusing Sen. Campbell is likely to undermine bigotry or promote tolerance. Donating his bill to a gay-rights charity, or organizing a "Stacy Days" festival fundraiser to do education and advocacy while raising money for gay rights would have been much more constructive, in my view.

Again, though, I want to point out that I am specifically referencing Campfield's actions, not necessarily his beliefs. That's a huge difference for me. Other than that, I think this is a minor distinction between our positions and yours is not wrong, just different.

Maq wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I do not approve of men having sex with each other.

Is it right for me to refuse service to men whom I know have had sex with each other, by their own accounts?

No, but you're perfectly within your rights to refuse to f*ck a man.

Homophobe

LarryC wrote:

I do not approve of men having sex with each other.

Is it right for me to refuse service to men whom I know have had sex with each other, by their own accounts?

No, but you're perfectly within your rights to refuse to f*ck a man.

You're also free to ask them to leave if they start f*cking each other in your store.

Maq wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I do not approve of men having sex with each other.

Is it right for me to refuse service to men whom I know have had sex with each other, by their own accounts?

No, but you're perfectly within your rights to refuse to f*ck a man.

You're also free to ask them to leave if they start f*cking each other in your store.

Presumably, I can only ask them to do that if I also ask everyone else who's f*cking to leave, too.

I can't answer that without making an utter mockery of the point I was making.

I think Larry already did that when he let the point sail right over his head, Maq.

Maq wrote:

I can't answer that without making an utter mockery of the point I was making.

Wasn't that the point he was making?

LarryC wrote:

Dimmerswitch is arguing against discrimination. I agree with him. The only way to fight discrimination is to fight against it in all its forms and practices.

Seth wrote:

I wonder if maybe you're approaching this from a more universal basis, that discriminating based on one action opens the door for others to discriminate based on *any* action. That is not what I am saying, my argument is specific to this incident.

I definitely think this is the point LarryC is trying to make and, while it's not being expressed clearly enough, I think he's totally right.

gregrampage wrote:
Seth wrote:

I wonder if maybe you're approaching this from a more universal basis, that discriminating based on one action opens the door for others to discriminate based on *any* action. That is not what I am saying, my argument is specific to this incident.

I definitely think this is the point LarryC is trying to make and, while it's not being expressed clearly enough, I think he's totally right.

I respectfully disagree. I discriminate against rotten fruit all the time; I much prefer fresh fruit. That does not somehow lock me into admitting that homophobia is okay.

Apropos of nothing, didn't someone mention there was a user-ignore feature?

I'm asking for a friend.