Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The non-PC PC Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Svensson
    replied
    Originally posted by Ginger View Post

    You can, actually, in the States, under the doctrine of "public accomodation", which holds that the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging a healthy economy, and that denying certain people the right to participate in economically essential activities threatens that interest. That arose from the railroads attempting to stifle long-distance trucking in the 1920s, which they correctly saw as a dangerous competitor. The railroads had been built through the empty spaces of the Great Plains and the Desert, at great expense (and with government grants), and formed settled strips in the wilderness, with hotels, restaurants, and gas stations in the depot towns, often the only ones for miles. The railroads tried to limit use of these businesses (generally built on railroad-owned land) to farmers hauling produce and freight to and from the depot, shutting out long distance truckers. The Supreme Court struck that right down, in the process framing the doctrine that you cannot arbitrarily prevent people from doing business necessary to conduct business of their own (e.g., buy gasoline, or stay in the hotel).

    In the decades afterward, particularly under the Warren court, that was used to cover pretty much every "civil rights" issue, including the right of negroes to go to the movie theatre, eat in the ice cream parlour, and play golf, none of which (ignoring all issues of fairness) seems economically necessary to me. I was shocked by the verdict, and I struggle to see the least bit of difference between this case and those. There's no doubt in my mind that the Warren Court misapplied a narrow doctrine, but are we now going to revist those other cases, and decide them by the new (and arguably original) standard?
    Yes, good examples of how the government had to intervene on behalf of the customers of potential customers. I have no legal argument for this, just a gut feeling, but I think that both issues were about inherently unfair business practices rather than about the merit of refusing an individual transaction. I think the argument can be made that unfair business practices are against the public interest or public accommodation. Maybe the wedding cake case would have been different had the baker put a sign into his shop-window saying "we don't serve gays" or to that effect...

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger
    replied
    Originally posted by Svensson View Post
    The case of the baker and the gay wedding cake issue was settled correctly IMO as you can not force someone to do business with someone they don't want to do business with.
    You can, actually, in the States, under the doctrine of "public accomodation", which holds that the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging a healthy economy, and that denying certain people the right to participate in economically essential activities threatens that interest. That arose from the railroads attempting to stifle long-distance trucking in the 1920s, which they correctly saw as a dangerous competitor. The railroads had been built through the empty spaces of the Great Plains and the Desert, at great expense (and with government grants), and formed settled strips in the wilderness, with hotels, restaurants, and gas stations in the depot towns, often the only ones for miles. The railroads tried to limit use of these businesses (generally built on railroad-owned land) to farmers hauling produce and freight to and from the depot, shutting out long distance truckers. The Supreme Court struck that right down, in the process framing the doctrine that you cannot arbitrarily prevent people from doing business necessary to conduct business of their own (e.g., buy gasoline, or stay in the hotel).

    In the decades afterward, particularly under the Warren court, that was used to cover pretty much every "civil rights" issue, including the right of negroes to go to the movie theatre, eat in the ice cream parlour, and play golf, none of which (ignoring all issues of fairness) seems economically necessary to me. I was shocked by the verdict, and I struggle to see the least bit of difference between this case and those. There's no doubt in my mind that the Warren Court misapplied a narrow doctrine, but are we now going to revist those other cases, and decide them by the new (and arguably original) standard?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    A teacher and his family have to go into hiding.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56524850

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/24/e...rnd/index.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/r...42431.html?amp

    Leave a comment:


  • Svensson
    replied
    right vs. right cases are always difficult (as opposed to right vs. wrong ). However, religion should not be a factor in a secular society and almost all western nations are governed by secular laws. the case of the baker and the gay wedding cake issue was settled correctly IMO as you can not force someone to do business with someone they don't want to do business with. No religious considerations are needed to come to the correct verdict.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Hi Herlock

    That's a difficult dilemma. When does someone's right to do business with whom they choose be constrained by legal requirements not to discriminate. I read ahead and I don't think I can come up with a better answer than Abby, so repeating that below.
    Hi Eten,

    Yes, I think Abby just about sums it up.

    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi Abby,

    Eten made the fair point that the RA had a right to disassociate themselves from someone whose opinions didn’t align with their ethos. Another question to consider though would be in regard to religious beliefs. I’m a non-believer as you know Abby and you are a believer. You will probably remember a couple of controversial incidents from recent history. I seem to recall Christian B&B owners being unwilling to allow a same-sex couple to share a room because it went against their beliefs. There was also the person that refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple because, he also said, it went against his religious beliefs. How do we call that one? Obviously not all Christians would take that stance but those individuals did. Do we call them homophobic or do we say that they have every right to say who stays at their B&B or who they make cakes for? We’re the people that called them homophobes using Hate Speech against someone with strong religious beliefs? I’m certainly not claiming to have the answers. To be honest, as it stands, I can’t see any resolutions. Battle lines appear to have been drawn. Difficult issues can’t be addressed by hysterical name calling.
    Hi Herlock

    That's a difficult dilemma. When does someone's right to do business with whom they choose be constrained by legal requirements not to discriminate. I read ahead and I don't think I can come up with a better answer than Abby, so repeating that below.

    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi herlock
    yes im a beleiver (in my own way) and belong to a church and go to church regularly. One of the reasons I belong to the church I do (its Episcopal btw) is that they are open/progressive about those issues- and welcome and have openly gay couples. we also have female/married pastors. the issues you mentioned are again very tough- personally I think they are wrong, but if it goes against their religious beliefs... i dont know i struggle with that. I will say though that in a perfect world i would hope their prospective religions would change that belief. you cant help how your born-whether that be being born in the wrong sex body or being born being attracted to the same sex. again I would hope those particular churches/religions will one day understand that and change those ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi herlock
    yes im a beleiver (in my own way) and belong to a church and go to church regularly. One of the reasons I belong to the church I do (its Episcopal btw) is that they are open/progressive about those issues- and welcome and have openly gay couples. we also have female/married pastors. the issues you mentioned are again very tough- personally I think they are wrong, but if it goes against their religious beliefs... i dont know i struggle with that. I will say though that in a perfect world i would hope their prospective religions would change that belief. you cant help how your born-whether that be being born in the wrong sex body or being born being attracted to the same sex. again I would hope those particular churches/religions will one day understand that and change those ideas.
    Well said Abby

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi Abby,

    I certainly wouldn’t argue that these are difficult and very sensitive issues. I’d also agree with earlier comments (I think by Caz and Roger) that things are probably being exacerbated by heated language on both sides. From my own point of view (and yes, I do have a bee-in-my-bonnet about the extreme dangers of political correctness and the curtailing of Free Speech) I just wish that people wouldn’t resort so quickly to taking ‘offense’ with accusations and name calling. I really dislike the phrase Hate Speech. There are faults on all sides no doubt though. Eten made the fair point that the RA had a right to disassociate themselves from someone whose opinions didn’t align with their ethos. Another question to consider though would be in regard to religious beliefs. I’m a non-believer as you know Abby and you are a believer. You will probably remember a couple of controversial incidents from recent history. I seem to recall Christian B&B owners being unwilling to allow a same-sex couple to share a room because it went against their beliefs. There was also the person that refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple because, he also said, it went against his religious beliefs. How do we call that one? Obviously not all Christians would take that stance but those individuals did. Do we call them homophobic or do we say that they have every right to say who stays at their B&B or who they make cakes for? We’re the people that called them homophobes using Hate Speech against someone with strong religious beliefs? I’m certainly not claiming to have the answers. To be honest, as it stands, I can’t see any resolutions. Battle lines appear to have been drawn. Difficult issues can’t be addressed by hysterical name calling.
    hi herlock
    yes im a beleiver (in my own way) and belong to a church and go to church regularly. One of the reasons I belong to the church I do (its Episcopal btw) is that they are open/progressive about those issues- and welcome and have openly gay couples. we also have female/married pastors. the issues you mentioned are again very tough- personally I think they are wrong, but if it goes against their religious beliefs... i dont know i struggle with that. I will say though that in a perfect world i would hope their prospective religions would change that belief. you cant help how your born-whether that be being born in the wrong sex body or being born being attracted to the same sex. again I would hope those particular churches/religions will one day understand that and change those ideas.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 06-23-2021, 04:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi herlock
    thanks for posting and good for them. and well said in your previous post-your much more eloquent than me. Having read the article, i notice that they had also called her tansphobic along with not working with her and pulling her art from the gift stores. I hadnt noticed that before and that is totally over the top in light of her comments. They should reinstate her work for sale in the gift shops as well IMHO. but glad cooler heads prevailed--its a tough issue especially when it comes to the competition in sports angle.
    Hi Abby,

    I certainly wouldn’t argue that these are difficult and very sensitive issues. I’d also agree with earlier comments (I think by Caz and Roger) that things are probably being exacerbated by heated language on both sides. From my own point of view (and yes, I do have a bee-in-my-bonnet about the extreme dangers of political correctness and the curtailing of Free Speech) I just wish that people wouldn’t resort so quickly to taking ‘offense’ with accusations and name calling. I really dislike the phrase Hate Speech. There are faults on all sides no doubt though. Eten made the fair point that the RA had a right to disassociate themselves from someone whose opinions didn’t align with their ethos. Another question to consider though would be in regard to religious beliefs. I’m a non-believer as you know Abby and you are a believer. You will probably remember a couple of controversial incidents from recent history. I seem to recall Christian B&B owners being unwilling to allow a same-sex couple to share a room because it went against their beliefs. There was also the person that refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple because, he also said, it went against his religious beliefs. How do we call that one? Obviously not all Christians would take that stance but those individuals did. Do we call them homophobic or do we say that they have every right to say who stays at their B&B or who they make cakes for? We’re the people that called them homophobes using Hate Speech against someone with strong religious beliefs? I’m certainly not claiming to have the answers. To be honest, as it stands, I can’t see any resolutions. Battle lines appear to have been drawn. Difficult issues can’t be addressed by hysterical name calling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    The RA have now apologised to the artist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...ransphobia-row
    hi herlock
    thanks for posting and good for them. and well said in your previous post-your much more eloquent than me. Having read the article, i notice that they had also called her tansphobic along with not working with her and pulling her art from the gift stores. I hadnt noticed that before and that is totally over the top in light of her comments. They should reinstate her work for sale in the gift shops as well IMHO. but glad cooler heads prevailed--its a tough issue especially when it comes to the competition in sports angle.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 06-23-2021, 02:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    The RA have now apologised to the artist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...ransphobia-row

    Leave a comment:


  • Svensson
    replied
    I guess what Eten is saying here is that there is no need to police gender-identity in recreational or non-elite sport which makes up 99.99+% of all sporting activity in the western world. The point of joining a sunday-league team is to get some exercise, get to do something that you are good at and enjoy and have a bit of fun at the same time. I can guarantee that no sporting careers will be spoilt by transgender issues is the Kent County Cricket Women's league.

    On the other end of the spectrum, in Elite sport, different sports have different ways of confirming genders in restricted categories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ve...tion_in_sports), which has moved well beyond just lifting the skirts of the athletes to see what's there. For the wider population however, this is a non-issue unless culture wars of any kind are your raison d'etre.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Hi Eten,

    Whilst I’m certainly not a scientist and so am nowhere near qualified to debate the technicalities it certainly appears that things are a long way from being clear cut, even amongst the experts. As the first article said, it’s not just a matter of testosterone but there’s the issue of athletes who are born men having greater muscle mass, bone density and strength. And so until these issues are ‘solved’ to everyone’s satisfaction I don’t see how a decision can be made to allow an athlete to compete who might be gaining a very real and significant advantage. I accept that this would be heartbreaking to the athletes in question though but we surely have to consider all athletes and the heartbreak that other athletes also would experience if they lost out on a medal or even a place at the Olympics to someone that had a proven advantage. I don’t see this as disproportionate Eten. I see it as a matter of fairness to all. This might be one of those occasions where, at the moment, it’s simply impossible to be fair to all. If anything is disproportionate I’d say that it would be to potentially disadvantage the many in favour of the very few (or the individual.) I can understand the sensitivity of the subject though but in a case like this where the science appears to be still under debate I think that fairness to the majority has to trump the fairness of the very few.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-23-2021, 09:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X