Non-violent dissent catch-all

Seth wrote:
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.

For someone who pointed out on the previous page that metaphors could make it harder for conversations to stay on topic, this post is a surprising choice.

Seth wrote:
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.

No one is saying that. Like Dimmerswitch has said repeatedly, it seems a lot of arguments are being fought against that aren't being made.

LarryC is saying you can use the same logic to say "it's ok to discriminate against this individual, he did something I don't approve of" (in this case, hate speech) to say "it's ok to discriminate against this invidual, he did something I don't approve of" (in this case, had sex with a man).

That doesn't say "homophobia is ok" nor does it attempt to lock you into admitting it. What it does say is there's no acceptable reason for discrimination. It reinforces Dimmerswitch's point that you don't get rid of discrimination with more discrimination.

There's that leap of logic again. Saying ejecting a man for hate speech is okay does not make ejecting a man for gay sex okay.

It's this inability to see discrimination as a complex issue that leads me to conclude as I did on the previous page, that for some people it's just easier to pretend *all* discrimination is bad and avoid the more complex discussion.

Seth wrote:

There's that leap of logic again. Saying ejecting a man for hate speech is okay does not make ejecting a man for gay sex okay.

It's this inability to see discrimination as a complex issue that leads me to conclude as I did on the previous page, that for some people it's just easier to pretend *all* discrimination is bad and avoid the more complex discussion.

Ok, so explain to me what makes ejecting a man for hate speech okay. If that same logic can't apply to ejecting a man for gay sex then I'll agree with you.

Saying I'm unable to see discrimination as a complex issue sounds more like you are trying to avoid the discussion than I am. You tell me it's a leap of logic but you don't actually point out where the logical flaw is. You just say it's flawed. Prove it wrong, don't just say it's wrong.

Sure: hate speech is different than gay sex.

Seth wrote:

Sure: hate speech is different than gay sex.

That did not prove that it's ok to discriminate against hate speech.

Are you just simply saying "it's ok to discriminate against hate speech" with no explanation and just leaving it at that. It has no other analogues or explanations?

gregrampage wrote:
Seth wrote:

Sure: hate speech is different than gay sex.

That did not prove that it's ok to discriminate against hate speech.

Are you just simply saying "it's ok to discriminate against hate speech" with no explanation and just leaving it at that. It has no other analogues or explanations?

Well, we're talking about morals here, so I would hesitate to try to prove anything. I think it's good to discriminate against the actions of a bigot. I think it's moral and should be commended. I think modern society should be based on judging people by the content of their character.

I think it's bad to discriminate against people for being born a certain way. I would call that bigotry. actions and people are different, after all.

And I would most certainly eject a gay couple from having sex in my store.

As a counterpoint: can you prove how discriminating against hate is somehow identical to discriminating against people?

You changed the argument. You changed it from "having gay sex" to "being gay." LarryC worded it very specifically and he did so for a reason. Actions and people are different. But are actions and actions? That's the point here.

The point is if you think discrimination based off actions is ok then you can twist everything into a form of action you don't agree with. It's very flimsy logic that opens a lot of ugly doors.

gregrampage wrote:

You changed the argument. You changed it from "having gay sex" to "being gay." LarryC worded it very specifically and he did so for a reason. Actions and people are different. But are actions and actions? That's the point here.

Fair point.

The point is if you think discrimination based off actions is ok then you can twist everything into a form of action you don't agree with. It's very flimsy logic that opens a lot of ugly doors.

It's not flimsy logic, it's just complicated logic that eschews the easy out of ignoring the problem wholesale. Evaluating discrimination on a case by case basis is tough. I understand that. It *definitely* can open a lot of ugly doors, which should be evaluated and then shut again. But I think it's necessary in order to build a fair society.

Seth wrote:
The point is if you think discrimination based off actions is ok then you can twist everything into a form of action you don't agree with. It's very flimsy logic that opens a lot of ugly doors.

It's not flimsy logic, it's just complicated logic that eschews the easy out of ignoring the problem wholesale. Evaluating discrimination on a case by case basis is tough. I understand that. It *definitely* can open a lot of ugly doors, which should be evaluated and then shut again. But I think it's necessary in order to build a fair society.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm asking you to discuss it. Explain the criteria for evaluation on a case by case basis. As LarryC once again pointed out, from this thread it appears the criteria are YOUR morals. If we consider discrimination based off personal morals to be acceptable then what stops discrimination against gay sex from being acceptable if that person thinks it's immoral to have gay sex?

gregrampage wrote:
Seth wrote:
The point is if you think discrimination based off actions is ok then you can twist everything into a form of action you don't agree with. It's very flimsy logic that opens a lot of ugly doors.

It's not flimsy logic, it's just complicated logic that eschews the easy out of ignoring the problem wholesale. Evaluating discrimination on a case by case basis is tough. I understand that. It *definitely* can open a lot of ugly doors, which should be evaluated and then shut again. But I think it's necessary in order to build a fair society.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm asking you to discuss it. Explain the criteria for evaluation on a case by case basis. As LarryC once again pointed out, from this thread it appears the criteria are YOUR morals. If we consider discrimination based off personal morals to be acceptable then what stops discrimination against gay sex from being acceptable if that person thinks it's immoral to have gay sex?

You're absolutely right that I'm using a specific set of morality (inclusiveness is good, bigotry is bad) to color my statement.

That said, if your gotcha moment is asking to explain why that morality is better than Senator Campfield's, the discussion once again becomes fruitless. I rarely engage with moral relativists.

gregrampage wrote:
Seth wrote:
The point is if you think discrimination based off actions is ok then you can twist everything into a form of action you don't agree with. It's very flimsy logic that opens a lot of ugly doors.

It's not flimsy logic, it's just complicated logic that eschews the easy out of ignoring the problem wholesale. Evaluating discrimination on a case by case basis is tough. I understand that. It *definitely* can open a lot of ugly doors, which should be evaluated and then shut again. But I think it's necessary in order to build a fair society.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm asking you to discuss it. Explain the criteria for evaluation on a case by case basis. As LarryC once again pointed out, from this thread it appears the criteria are YOUR morals. If we consider discrimination based off personal morals to be acceptable then what stops discrimination against gay sex from being acceptable if that person thinks it's immoral to have gay sex?

The criteria is legally set. You can defend yourself for discriminating against someone because he is a raging asshole drunk, you can't if you discriminate based on what he did in private the night before. That's why something like Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exists. You can discriminate for any non-listed reason you want (though you should be prepared for resulting consequences if you offend enough of the community).

Seth wrote:

You're absolutely right that I'm using a specific set of morality (inclusiveness is good, bigotry is bad) to color my statement.

That said, if your gotcha moment is asking to explain why that morality is better than Senator Campfield's, the discussion once again becomes fruitless. I rarely engage with moral relativists.

I'm honestly not trying to play gotcha. I'm just trying to keep the discussion as clear and non-derailed (railed?) as possible. I'm not particularly adept at expressing my thoughts and I've found these leading questions to be the best way to reach the point I'm trying to make.

Now that we've reached this point though it's more or less at "agree to disagree" because we've reached a point that is essentially an opinion and I'm not going to tell that you're wrong.

It does bring me to another point Dimmerswitch brought up...what does this accomplish? Let's say Campfield asked you why you wouldn't serve him. Let's say you end up having this exact conversation because he wants to know why it's okay for you to not serve him. How do you convince him that your morals are ok and his aren't? He thinks gay people are immoral. If nothing else, your justification gives him more fuel because you're straight up telling him it's okay to discriminate based off morality.

Kraint wrote:

The criteria is legally set. You can defend yourself for discriminating against someone because he is a raging asshole drunk, you can't if you discriminate based on what he did in private the night before. That's why something like Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exists. You can discriminate for any non-listed reason you want (though you should be prepared for resulting consequences if you offend enough of the community).

From a legal perspective, absolutely. I didn't think that was what we were really discussing though. From a legal perspective everything that happened is 100% ok.

gregrampage wrote:
Kraint wrote:

The criteria is legally set. You can defend yourself for discriminating against someone because he is a raging asshole drunk, you can't if you discriminate based on what he did in private the night before. That's why something like Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exists. You can discriminate for any non-listed reason you want (though you should be prepared for resulting consequences if you offend enough of the community).

From a legal perspective, absolutely. I didn't think that was what we were really discussing though. From a legal perspective everything that happened is 100% ok.

Well, I wish you the best of luck deciding on a set of morals. Maybe you guys can decide which religion and political affiliation is right next.

Kraint wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Kraint wrote:

The criteria is legally set. You can defend yourself for discriminating against someone because he is a raging asshole drunk, you can't if you discriminate based on what he did in private the night before. That's why something like Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exists. You can discriminate for any non-listed reason you want (though you should be prepared for resulting consequences if you offend enough of the community).

From a legal perspective, absolutely. I didn't think that was what we were really discussing though. From a legal perspective everything that happened is 100% ok.

Well, I wish you the best of luck deciding on a set of morals. Maybe you guys can decide which religion and political affiliation is right next. :D

Haha, I think you just made my point better than I did.

This comes down to the protected classes thing again.

We have, as a society, determined that people discriminating prejudicially against certain classes of people is a serious social problem, a wrong that must be corrected. Not everybody agrees, of course, but the majority do agree that it is wrong to discriminate prejudicially against people based on the color of their skin. Even though that's true, a lot of people still believe it's okay to discriminate prejudicially based on religion or ethnic background (i.e. anti-Muslim sentiment.) Fortunately, there are already laws in place to punish people who choose to express prejudice on the basis of religion or ethnic background. Unfortunately, a lot of people are willing to overlook that since 9/11.

Now, on to the homosexual issue. Here, things are less clear. There are laws on the books in a lot of places to make sexual orientation a protected category. At the same time, there aren't laws everywhere. Even more, we have this big fight going on right now over gay marriage—and the clearly discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy has just recently been gotten rid of. Clearly, there's a lot of question about whether [em]as a society[/em] we agree that it's okay to forbid people to do certain things because of their sexual orientation. (Like serve in the military.) At the same time, in certain places certain things are explicitly protected. (Like the Connecticut B&B thing where housing availability cannot be determined on that basis.)

Now, the fundamental questions here are: 1) "Is it okay for someone to engage in homosexual sex?", and 2) "Is it okay for someone to discriminate against someone who is known to engage in homosexual sex?" The growing consensus among Americans is that the answer to 1 is in the affirmative, and the answer to 2 is in the negative. And in fact, consensus has grown faster on the second point: because even those who believe that homosexual sex is wrong agree that treating people horribly because they're known to be homosexual is even more wrong.

And now more legal protections are coming into place and legal restrictions are getting torn down because of these things. But the reason for all of these changes is that public opinion has been swayed: people have been made to understand that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is natural, that punishing people for it does no one any good, that it does not necessarily promote promiscuity, etc. etc. etc. And so, now when we look at someone bigoted against gays, many of us see someone who is a threat to our neighbors, rather than a protector of moral virtue.

Anyway, here's what it comes down to, as far as the difference between "discriminating against people who promote hate speech" and "discriminating against people who participate in homosexual sex":

We, as a society, have mostly decided that there's nothing wrong with homosexual sex. More importantly, we have decided that it is wrong to allow people to be punished, threatened, or refused service (which often amounts to punishment) because they are known to participate in homosexual sex. We've decided that because we saw the kinds of injustices that it leads to, with people being hounded out of communities, committing suicide, teens being murdered, etc. And so we put policies in place to stop that.

On the other side, we have mostly decided that speech intended to incite hatred in people is wrong. We have not seen evidence that there are systematic injustices occurring against people who promote hate speech. There is no major history of people being murdered or beaten or committing suicide after being shunned for such actions. We have found no need to protect the originators of hate speech from others, because no systemic problem has been shown to exist. In fact, we have found it necessary to protect other people from people who promote hate speech much more often than the other way around.

We have decided that gay sex is acceptable, even though many religious traditions revile it—and we have decided that because of those strong traditions, it is necessary to legislate against discriminating (that is to say: treating things differently) between heterosexual and homosexual individuals on the basis of that difference alone.

We have not, on the other hand, decided that hate speech is acceptable, even though as speech it has some constitutional protections. We haven't found that people who say hateful things are in any particular danger of systematic discrimination. We have not decided that it is necessary to prevent people from being able to exercise free choice in whether they choose to associate with such individuals, or choose not to associate with such individuals.

In short: It is wrong to discriminate against gays because we have decided it is wrong (because it is generally done due to prejudice that we do not accept as valid, and because it has lead to harmful outcomes in the past—therefore we have decided that in this case it is more important to protect this class of people from harm than to avoid restricting the rights of individuals) It is not wrong to discriminate against individuals for saying hateful things about gays because we have not decided that it is wrong, and because people generally have a right to choose who they wish not to have dealings with. (That is: we see no need to protect people who publicly say awful things because we have not observed any systematic danger. Therefore, we see no need to restrict the rights of individuals in this case.)

The ground assumption here is that it is okay for people to choose who they want to deal with or not deal with, for whatever reason they want. It is only when we find as a society that there is a systematic problem that we look towards restricting that right of freedom of association.

gregrampage wrote:

It does bring me to another point Dimmerswitch brought up...what does this accomplish? Let's say Campfield asked you why you wouldn't serve him. Let's say you end up having this exact conversation because he wants to know why it's okay for you to not serve him. How do you convince him that your morals are ok and his aren't? He thinks gay people are immoral. If nothing else, your justification gives him more fuel because you're straight up telling him it's okay to discriminate based off morality.

First, sorry if I bristled at you. I often feel questions like that are employments of the Socratic method and I inevitably feel led into a trap, whether it's accurate or not. This happens all the time to me with Cheezepavillion.

Second, I think there's some real substance here. It certainly made the Bistro at the Bijou more popular on facebook, generated a lot of internet discussion, and ultimately made Boggs a hero for her willingness to stand up to bigotry.

Did it change the mind of Campfield? Likely not, but then it wasn't intended to. I think it was a powerful and good event, and one that will be looked upon favorably in the fight against bigotry.

Seth wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

It does bring me to another point Dimmerswitch brought up...what does this accomplish? Let's say Campfield asked you why you wouldn't serve him. Let's say you end up having this exact conversation because he wants to know why it's okay for you to not serve him. How do you convince him that your morals are ok and his aren't? He thinks gay people are immoral. If nothing else, your justification gives him more fuel because you're straight up telling him it's okay to discriminate based off morality.

First, sorry if I bristled at you. I often feel questions like that are employments of the Socratic method and I inevitably feel led into a trap, whether it's accurate or not. This happens all the time to me with Cheezepavillion.

Second, I think there's some real substance here. It certainly made the Bistro at the Bijou more popular on facebook, generated a lot of internet discussion, and ultimately made Boggs a hero for her willingness to stand up to bigotry.

Did it change the mind of Campfield? Likely not, but then it wasn't intended to. I think it was a powerful and good event, and one that will be looked upon favorably in the fight against bigotry.

No worries.

That's all very valid and definitely an important part of the discussion of non-violent dissent in general. Out of curiosity, how did this get publicity? Was it through Campfield, Boggs, or just an observer?

I heard about it from the gay marriage thread.

Here's some info from Martha Boggs.

LarryC wrote:

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.

Hypatian again explained my position better than I could, but since this was directed at me, I'll give it a shot.
Yes, I think it is okay to discriminate against people for particular reasons (almost exclusively their actions). It's not my personal approval that I'm using to decide that one action is okay, while the other isn't, it's the approval of the society I live in. Society has (mostly) deemed that you cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. It does allow you to discriminate against people who are actively spreading dangerous untruths and actively promoting hate. I agree with Dimmerswitch that telling Sen Campfield to leave wasn't the best course of action Boggs could have taken, and it does nothing to help change his mind. However, it will serve as encouragement for others to stand up for equal rights for homosexuals.
The reason I don't share your position that discrimination is never okay is that it can lead to very bad things. Would you let John Wayne Gacy babysit your kids unsupervised? Would you eat a dinner prepared by Armin Meiwes? You would be discriminating against them based on their past actions if you didn't. Just for the record, these are hyperbolic examples, I'm not comparing Sen. Campfield to either of them.

Overall, this is actually a very interesting ethical question--precisely because there's no clear-cut answer to be found. You definitely have points where almost everyone would agree "it's okay to refuse to do business with someone for that reason". You also definitely have points where almost everyone would agree on the opposite. But in between those two points (which are not the far extremes), there's a lot of variation. Pretty much nobody has a rule that even they can follow and say "everybody on this side of the line is right, and everybody on the other side is wrong". And it's difficult to even imagine a group of people all sharing the same rule.

But that's exactly what makes this sort of thing worth talking about: by discussing it we can try to work out as individuals what [em]we[/em] believe is right. We can be exposed to more examples that we might not have thought of. To more points of view that we may not have considered. We might change our minds, or become more decided in our own opinions. I'm very glad we're talking about this.

Stengah:

I'd like to reemphsasize that I'm an outsider to American culture and politics, and that what I say is taken from an outsider observation point.

It does not seem to me that your society condemns hate speech and spreading untruths. In fact, this is endemic in your advertising and in your political campaigning. Insinuating nasty things that may or may not be true about your political opponent seems to be an effective way to get elected.

Speaking for myself, without the mask of rhetoric, Robear refers to me as a pragmatist, and I would broadly agree with him. I do not think that you as a nation or as a society are so monolithic as to have a single voice on most topics so referring to "my society" as a moral authority on hot button topics under heavy debate doesn't make sense to me. Your society is obviously not decided on this issue.

Moreover, it seems that doing so is just doing what your opponents are doing. "My morality is right and their's is wrong, so our morals ought to be encoded into law so that we can force everyone to abide by it." It goes against my own personal morals because I value tolerance, even if I fail to practice it.

The reason I don't share your position that discrimination is never okay is that it can lead to very bad things. Would you let John Wayne Gacy babysit your kids unsupervised? Would you eat a dinner prepared by Armin Meiwes? You would be discriminating against them based on their past actions if you didn't. Just for the record, these are hyperbolic examples, I'm not comparing Sen. Campfield to either of them.

I'm quite sorry - I don't know either Gacy nor Meiwes. Google reveals them not to be very nice people. Nevertheless, any objection to having them do the relevant activities for me is founded on two things:

I am asking them for a service-for-fee. In this, we are free to look for the best service-for-fee in the market relevant to our criteria, and I'm confident that I can find better merchants than those two.

My patronage is not a public accommodation. There is no social onus for me to engage every service on the planet, if they ask.

If you want to submit more examples and situations, I would be interested in thinking about the logical conclusions of a "no-discrimination" policy.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

I'd like to reemphsasize that I'm an outsider to American culture and politics, and that what I say is taken from an outsider observation point.

Thanks for the reminder, it somehow completely slipped my mind.

It does not seem to me that your society condemns hate speech and spreading untruths. In fact, this is endemic in your advertising and in your political campaigning. Insinuating nasty things that may or may not be true about your political opponent seems to be an effective way to get elected.

Speaking for myself, without the mask of rhetoric, Robear refers to me as a pragmatist, and I would broadly agree with him. I do not think that you as a nation or as a society are so monolithic as to have a single voice on most topics so referring to "my society" as a moral authority on hot button topics under heavy debate doesn't make sense to me. Your society is obviously not decided on this issue.

Moreover, it seems that doing so is just doing what your opponents are doing. "My morality is right and their's is wrong, so our morals ought to be encoded into law so that we can force everyone to abide by it." It goes against my own personal morals because I value tolerance, even if I fail to practice it.

By "my society" I did not mean the entirety of the US. Northeastern US is probably as large as I'd define it, even though there are many other parts of the US that share it. Every state in the northeastern US has made it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, that's what I'm using as my basis when I say that the society I live in thinks it's wrong. The entirety of the US does condemn hate speech, but as you point out, there are differing opinions as to what constitutes "hate speech," but that's more or less irrelevant, because as much as it's condemned, it's still allowed and perfectly legal.

I'm quite sorry - I don't know either Gacy nor Meiwes. Google reveals them not to be very nice people. Nevertheless, any objection to having them do the relevant activities for me is founded on two things:

I am asking them for a service-for-fee. In this, we are free to look for the best service-for-fee in the market relevant to our criteria, and I'm confident that I can find better merchants than those two.

How can you determine their quality as merchants without discriminating based on their past actions? For a less hyperbolic example: How do you determine which restaurant you want to eat at without discriminating based on your past experiences with the restaurants available? If discrimination is always wrong, is it wrong to not go to the place that served you undercooked meat and you witnessed the chef blow his nose in the food?

Stengah:

I can't allow that legality is the same as morality, particularly in your society where it is not that unusual for there to be a significant disconnect between what the law allows and what the public thinks is morally acceptable. For instance, piracy is illegal, but it is widely practiced. Along the same lines, Prohibition used to make alcohol illegal, but it was sold and consumed just the same.

Moreover, the entire line of argument is a fallacy called Appeal to Authority. "It's right because an expert thinks it's right," is not a logically sound statement. If it's morally correct, then there are reasons for why it is so, and the expert's opinion never needs to be cited.

Seth calls this moral relativism, but it's... ...slightly different. It's not taking every moral stance as valid, but recognizing that every faction has a different moral outlook, and that a society-wide behavioral shift can be accomplished best by instituting means that are acceptable to as many moral outlooks as possible. The alternative, as I mentioned, is to take one moral outlook (your own, of course) and just force everyone to abide by it through the barrel of a gun. That works, too.

How can you determine their quality as merchants without discriminating based on their past actions? For a less hyperbolic example: How do you determine which restaurant you want to eat at without discriminating based on your past experiences with the restaurants available? If discrimination is always wrong, is it wrong to not go to the place that served you undercooked meat and you witnessed the chef blow his nose in the food?

Good point. I will concede that it is desirable to allow discrimination between commercial products in a free market economy.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:
I can't allow that legality is the same as morality, particularly in your society where it is not that unusual for there to be a significant disconnect between what the law allows and what the public thinks is morally acceptable. For instance, piracy is illegal, but it is widely practiced. Along the same lines, Prohibition used to make alcohol illegal, but it was sold and consumed just the same.

Moreover, the entire line of argument is a fallacy called Appeal to Authority. "It's right because an expert thinks it's right," is not a logically sound statement. If it's morally correct, then there are reasons for why it is so, and the expert's opinion never needs to be cited.

Seth calls this moral relativism, but it's... ...slightly different. It's not taking every moral stance as valid, but recognizing that every faction has a different moral outlook, and that a society-wide behavioral shift can be accomplished best by instituting means that are acceptable to as many moral outlooks as possible. The alternative, as I mentioned, is to take one moral outlook (your own, of course) and just force everyone to abide by it through the barrel of a gun. That works, too.

I never claimed that legal = moral or illegal = immoral. In face I've stated the exact opposite. (your hypothetical discrimination against gays in TN would be legal, but I would think it wrong). Frankly, my argument is an argument from authority, but not all arguments from authority are fallacious. The authority I'm appealing to is a legitimate source on what is right or wrong in my society. I'll grant you that it f*cks up from time to time, but I'm fairly certain the decision that discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't one of them. Another source I use for my own morals is the Golden Rule. I do not want anyone discriminating against me based on my sexual orientation, so I don't think it is okay for others to do the same. I do think it's okay for someone to discriminate against me based on my past actions, so I think it's okay for others to do the same. I recognize that I will disagree with others as to which actions should be discriminated against, so I try not to get all bent out of shape when someone disagrees with me on whether an action should be discriminated against (how successful I am will depend on how much patience I have, how strongly I feel about the action in question, and many other factors). I'm aware that there's not ultimate arbitrator of morals, and recognize what is moral differs from culture to culture. If you want me to say that sometimes it's okay for one culture to force their morals on another, I'll say it. Some things are so wrong that sometimes it's okay to force people to stop doing them.

I think I will have to bow out of this particular subtopic.

I am Filipino. My culture was all but destroyed in the name of enforcing Spanish morality on my people. I cannot be objective about this, and I distrust my ability to stay logical.

You know, asking a known homophobe to leave your restaurant isn't discrimination. Equating that action with discrimination on the basis of sexuality is both a false equivalence and a classic case of the fallacy of equivocation. Discrimination legislation typically protects categories of people where membership of that category is not some kind of free choice. A homosexual man can no more choose not to be homosexual tomorrow than a blind woman can choose not to be blind. But if you hold a homophobic opinion there is little about yourself that prevents you from learning and changing that opinion. Most people, and the law, typically recognise that holding some opinion and your right to express it is a matter for free speech legislation and not one for discrimination legislation.

Also when we consider what discrimination is, the systematic deprivation of someone's rights or equal access to social resources; is there anything about being barred from a single restaurant that is part of a systematic deprivation of someone's rights? Not being able to eat brunch in one cafe can hardly be said to raise to the level of systematic deprivation of someone's rights.

Also LarryC's facile example about barring men who have previously had sex with one another;

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?

When we think about discrimination we have to ask the question about what the real world impacts of a policy are. If your policy disproportionately discriminates against a group of people, who aren't otherwise able to choose not to be part of that group, then your policy is discriminatory. Perhaps you didn't mean it to be so, but the intention is of little relevance to the real world impact. Of course if your policy penalised as many heterosexual men as homosexual men then perhaps it isn't a problem. That said, if you can find 400 men who rate 0 or 1 on the Kinsey scale and have had sex with one another then I'll entertain the notion that your example isn't both wildly homophobic and functionally discriminatory.

Hypatian wrote:

Overall, this is actually a very interesting ethical question--precisely because there's no clear-cut answer to be found. You definitely have points where almost everyone would agree "it's okay to refuse to do business with someone for that reason". You also definitely have points where almost everyone would agree on the opposite. But in between those two points (which are not the far extremes), there's a lot of variation. Pretty much nobody has a rule that even they can follow and say "everybody on this side of the line is right, and everybody on the other side is wrong". And it's difficult to even imagine a group of people all sharing the same rule.

But that's exactly what makes this sort of thing worth talking about: by discussing it we can try to work out as individuals what [em]we[/em] believe is right. We can be exposed to more examples that we might not have thought of. To more points of view that we may not have considered. We might change our minds, or become more decided in our own opinions. I'm very glad we're talking about this. :)

I think Hypatian is spot on here. It's why I said a page ago that Dimmerswitch isn't wrong. Good post, Hypatian.

And it's difficult to even imagine a group of people all sharing the same rule.

Unless, of course, it's a government or religious law.