Equal rights for everyone isn’t a political cause.
Unless you figure that tax preparers can refuse to say you’re required to file your tax return, because to you, filing tax returns is a political cause. Equal rights is the law, not politics.
“Free speech” is well and good, but we rightfully and reasonably carve out exceptions. Exceptions like harassment.
If I constantly misgendered you, treated you as the wrong gender, and did so knowing full well that it caused you great harm (and yes, misgendering trans people is seriously harmful to their mental health), there would be a very reasonable case to be made that I was harassing or abusing you - regardless of whether or not you were trans. That’s why bills like this exist. Consistently and intentionally misgendering trans people is an act of verbal violence, akin to shouting racial slurs at people or gaslighting a partner.
Also: Peterson got flak at least in part because his objections to the bill lied about what the bill actually did.
I hear that. Harassment in any form is wrong, and it crosses the line from speech into action. And I would say that there are uncountable examples of someone intentionally misgendering another as a form of harassment. I would hope they get prosecuted for it. As for my statement, I should clarify that I meant discourse, and not harassment.
I won’t defend Peterson the man in any way, that’s his job.
Linguistically over time extending the lexicon of English to include an expanded list of pronouns should be possible, no question. But, should we not separate the harassment from the word choice?
After getting tired of an argument that seemed to be just going around in circles, I thought I would come back to respond to #271, but I see that nelliebly has already providedan excellent response to it. It can hardly be improved upon, but I just wanted to add a couple of further comments of my own.
You misunderstand. I’m not “agreeing” with you, I’m mocking your characterization of the system of laws essential to any civilization as constituting “compelled behavior”. If this is really a problem for you, perhaps you’d be happier living with the lawless pirates of Somalia, although I bet even they, being a human organization, have codes of “compelled” behavior.
You really think this is a problem? Do you really think that there’s no clear-cut difference between refusing service to a specific individual for demonstrable cause that is harmful to the business – say by being threatening and disruptive, or consistently refusing to pay his bills – and capriciously refusing service to an entire class of people for no demonstrable reason except prejudice and bigotry? Or is your own judgment blinded by some ideology?
I’m in favor of civilization instead of lawless anarchy, yes. It’s not actually all that amazing.
Yes it is. But if you must, then just remove ‘political’ from my comment.
Answered in the last sentence of mine you quoted,
“You can tell an employee they ** must comply with the law** and company policy, but you shouldn’t be able to force them to advocate for your political cause.”
People are required to pay taxes as that is the law. What law requires me to be forced by my employer to actively support their political cause? Was it a company policy that I was made aware of prior to employment that I must actively support the company in its non-work related activities?
Also, if equal rights are the law then what is the cause being supported? Be nice to gay people? I struggle being nice to non-gay people, so why would I make an exception for them?
Wow, you continue to demonstrate an amazing lack of understanding of what “human rights” means and what this whole discussion is about. I don’t know how it’s possible to make it any clearer than it’s already been made, and you still don’t get it. No, you’re not required to “be nice” to gay people, what is required is that you not to degrade them as second-class citizens by rejecting them as equal members of society through such means as refusing to engage in common business transactions with them, something that has long happened with visible minorities. Bigotry in its more extreme forms, far from a matter of “being nice” or not, has led to some of the ugliest and most horrific events in the history of mankind.
And your link about whether or not an employee can be “forced” to make a charitable contribution requested by his employer is, as usual, completely off the mark and irrelevant. It’s not about charity and it’s not about “volunteers”. Influential businesses and other organizations, as I’ve pointed out again and again, routinely engage in social causes in the community collectively, as an organization and as a visible aspect of their brand and their perceived responsibility as citizens of the community they are part of. This reflects directly and indirectly on their employees, through identification with the brand, perhaps through uniforms they wear, maybe through symbols on their uniforms as per the many examples I’ve given, or maybe just through being known as employees of that organization.
If I’m an IBM salesperson and I’m going to a customer tomorrow morning to try to sign a million-dollar consulting contract, and IBM is in the news tonight displaying their rainbow logo at an LGBT advocacy event, I’m in effect “forced” (to use your ridiculous terminology) to be associated with that cause in the public eye. Heaven forfend, I might even have to answer questions about it from a bigot! But IBMers don’t actually have a problem with it. It appears that you do. You need to think long and hard about why.
Oh, and just to answer the first question you asked, there can be value in having social causes promoting things that are already the law when the law reflects broader social values that still haven’t percolated into the various dark nooks and crannies in the backwaters of society. This was very much the case in the early days of the Civil Rights Act, for example, and is still in many ways true today with respect to racism, which is becoming more and more socially unacceptable and being driven further into the extremist fringes, a sign of progress and its eventual marginalization and complete demise.
The title, “Are Americans kind of forced to support LGBT standpoints?”. The answer appears to be a resounding ‘Yes’.
Your response is that they should be forced to support them, no matter what the cause is. You seem stuck on this particular issue and the good results that can arise from companies supporting it. While I care about the issue, I don’t care how noble it is in relation to forcing people to support it. Can I object to being forced when the cause isn’t as noble? When do I get to object and be allowed to just do the job I’m being paid for?
It was also about being required to donate hours and working as a ‘volunteer’ vs an ‘employee’. All sorts of issues can arise when you cross that boundary. And I think your distinction between a cause and a charity is pretty arbitrary at best.
I don’t need to think hard and long about it. I’ve answered why I don’t think it is part of my job, because it probably isn’t in my JD as part of my role. If a customer asks me about billing, I’ll direct them to the billing department. If they ask me about LGBT issues, I’ll direct them to the LGBT department. I see no reason to get into it with a customer on what their beliefs are that are not directly linked to the job at hand. I didn’t work 9 years in the middle east being an atheist without learning to keep my mouth shut on the subject of religion (for the most part:)). So, if I don’t answer in the approved company newspeak, what is my penalty?
That’s all great. You can go and tilt at windmills all you want to. If you asked, I might join you. I’m just don’t agree that I should be forced to.
If you’re defining “LGBT standpoints” to mean “equal rights for LGBT people”, then I agree with you that Americans are “kind of forced to support them”. Although not yet as much as we should be, IMHO.
Similarly, we are “kind of forced to support black standpoints” by not being allowed to refuse to serve black customers or harass black people with racial epithets.
I don’t see that as a bad thing, whether the people benefiting from the equal rights are black, LGBT, female, atheist, or any other historically disadvantaged/oppressed group.
It’s not about “nobility”, it’s about the basic principle of equal rights. That’s something that we as Americans are theoretically supposed to be quite in favor of, isn’t it?
If you don’t want to have to symbolically demonstrate your endorsement of American principles as part of your job, then you probably need to find a job that isn’t partly about your serving as a public face and cultural ambassador of American society.
I think it’s wonderful that you have decided to declare victory on the basis that there are various laws in various places that compel certain people to perform services against their will. Beats developing an argument that convinces people who disagree with you.
Just leave the people alone. The guy doesn’t want to design a wedding cake for you, ask for a referral. They don’t want to seat you in a restaurant because your wearing a turban, don’t go there. If you want to get mad about it, write a letter or go to some meeting and tell other people.
No, you should think it’s wonderful that there are consistent laws throughout the civilized world that support human rights, and very few any more in the civilized world that support your medieval concept of arbitrary hateful discrimination against your fellow man.
A very few might actually do so, but most? Does it seem likely that the homophobic bigot who’s going to feel it necessary to have a disinfecting shower to rid himself of the homophobic stench of having to be within a ten-foot radius of your Biblically prohibited sodomic aura will be very pleased to provide a referral to an obliging godless baker backed by Lucifer himself?
Isn’t that kind of a problem when all 37 restaurants in Hicksville all feel exactly the same way about turbans? Haven’t we learned anything at all from the early civil rights era?
I could, but then there would be letters from people like you.
You are required (forced) to follow the law. If the law says you must treat all customers equally, then you have to do that or risk some form of penalty. There is no law that says a company must support a cause. Nor should you as an employee be forced to actively support said cause. Do people not see the difference between having to follow the law and being told to promote some arbitrary cause?
IBM Corporate Service Corps (PDF).
“Since 2008, the IBM Corporate Service Corps has deployed over 3,000 IBM volunteers from over 60 countries on over 1,000 projects in 37 countries, donating over $70 million in market value consulting services.” Bolding mine.
Reading their policies, I get the distinct impression that while the company supports many things, the expectation is that you watch what you are doing when speaking as an IBMer. I doubt that they force you to do anything not covered by policy and isn’t voluntary.
Again, that your cause is just isn’t the point.
Sure, but it’s not really relevant unless you’re trying to argue that an employer has no business making you do anything that the law doesn’t explicitly require you to do. In which case, ho-lee shit, there ain’t gonna be a lot of work getting done.
My point, which you seem to be not seeing, is that what underlies “following the law” about equal rights for black people and, as you put it, “supporting the cause” of equal rights for LGBT people is exactly the same principle.
Once again, characterizing the motives of people in the vilest way. Everything I’ve heard about the Colorado case indicates the baker was cordial. It seems if you can’t even conceive that some people have deeply held beliefs and they strive to live their lives in accordance with those beliefs.
I don’t think the baker was a homophobe. I think he didn’t want to design a cake celebrating something that he saw as wrong. But you seem to have reached a place where anybody that disagrees with you about these matters is a homophobe. Are there really homophobes? Probably, but I don’t know any. I know a few people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman - some for religious reasons and a couple that just think it’s not right (as opposed to wrong). I also know a person that absolutely believed levitation in magic shows was real (they also believed fans at night would kill you).
I don’t know why people have beliefs. I personally think they’re sort of silly for the most part. But I don’t think they’re evil because they believe something. If the lady down the street wants to attribute all sorts of magical powers to crystals - let her. If the guy that owns the gas station thinks that instant gratification with any woman awaits him in the afterlife - let him. Don’t want to eat at the same place as unbelievers - I’m not going to be offended.
I don’t think you’ve learned anything from the early civil rights era. Various state and local governments were responsible for the rules.
Also, love your disparaging “Hicksville.”
And, what letter am I writing. Or have I become a homophobic, racist because I have policy disagreements with you.
Cordial, maybe. But if you are polite when you tell someone that they are a second class citizen that doesn’t have the rights of someone you approve of, it doesn’t really matter.
If he has a prejudice against homosexual people, then he is a homophobe.
But you seem to have reached a place where anybody that disagrees with you about these matters is a homophobe. Are there really homophobes? Probably, but I don’t know any. I know a few people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman - some for religious reasons and a couple that just think it’s not right (as opposed to wrong).
[/quote]
Right, and those people are prejudiced against homosexuals as well.
That’s Anemistiraphobia.
If your neighbor believes that his dog is telling him to kill you, no offense there either? Just as genuine and balanced a belief as any other.
How does not agreeing to participate in a ceremony you believe is wrong make the other party a second class citizen. How do you get from I don’t want to participate in a ceremony that violates a deeply held belief to I dislike homosexuals? Are people simply not allowed to believe a behavior is wrong? If I disapprove of men who frequent bath houses for anonymous sex (don’t know if it’s still a thing), am I a homophobe?
Did this not register with you?
In your hypothetical, I would think the neighbor is unbalanced. I may or may not try to take some action. Or I may wind up on the news with another neighbor telling the reporter, “Yeah, I heard him say it every day. Thought he was funning MemoryLeak though!”
It seems you want to be in the belief validation business (or want the government in that business).
He’s not participating, he’s just making a cake.
Depends. If you approve of orgies and swinger’s parties as long as the couplings are all heterosexual, but disapprove of homosexual liaisons of the sort, then yes, that would be an example of homophobia. If you are disapproving of promiscuity, then you are just a prude. 
Yeah, it does, you think that if someone has a belief, then that belief shall remain unchallenged, no matter how irrational it is. That belief can then be used as a basis for biases and discrimination against people, it can be used to treat people differently, and it still may not be challenged.
I disagree.
But, if the reason that your neighbor’s dog is telling it to kill you is because you are gay, that is just a belief that should not be challenged.
It seems you want to be in the mind reading buisiness. Sorry, looks like you have far more studying to do.
What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, regardless of your belief of the inferiority of others.
He’s designing a cake. It’s quite clear to me that it’s an art form. Hell, there are hundreds (it seems) of shows with people creating desserts and judges judging. This is not some fringe belief on my part. Beside, I don’t get to decide what’s an art.
It’s interesting, though, that your comment seems to imply that people “doing art” can decide not to participate (I’m getting that from your dismissive “he’s just making a cake.”).
This is one of my main issues with all this. You need to drill down into everyone’s belief framework to make any sort of decision. If governments aren’t forcing people to discriminate and governments aren’t discriminating - I’m good.
Where do you get that I don’t believe people should be challenging other’s beliefs. I just don’t believe the government should be involved. Hell, I’m sitting here telling you I think your belief that the government should compel behavior that’s antithetical to someone’s beliefs is wrongheaded.
How are you making these leaps? I said
In your hypothetical I’m not sure I would want to directly challenge his belief system simply because he’s probably batshit crazy and I doubt I could muster an argument he would accept that he’s likely wrong about his dog.
There’s a bunch of this well poisoning going on. Why do feel the need to say I think others are inferior? It adds nothing to your statement.
Is the same as this.
You’ve done this before. There was no need to disparage me.
The lingusitic gymnastics that bigots go through to try to claim that they’re not bigots is pretty amazing. “He’s not a homophobe, he just thinks that gay people getting equal rights is wrong! You’re such a meany to put that label on him when he just wants to deny gay people basic civil rights!”
Not dismissive, descriptive. You said participating. Making a cake is not participating, it is making a cake.
On this, I am not saying that the govt should have any involvement. I was just expressing my opinion on the matter. If you approve of promiscuity, but not of the homosexual variety, then you are a bit of a homophobe. I do not think that means that the government should require you to participate in gay orgies.
It is not what they believe that is a problem, it is how they act on those beliefs that can be.
But I am assuming that you would not accept that, because he believes his dog says that you should die, that he should have the right to kill you.
That’s a general “you”. In english, there is no difference between a singular “you” and a plural “you.” Sometimes, it can be a bit confusing.
If it makes you feel better, in spanish, I would have said “ustedes.”
No, those are not the same statement. One has qualifiers, and one doesn’t. If you strip off the qualifiers, then it changes the meaning of the statement. Same as when you took miller’s statement out of context, and claimed that it meant something else.
You have done exactly that before, with the taking of a statement out of context. And there was no disparaging of your being.
So you want the government to compel his participation in the wedding (yeah, I know, you don’t believe designing and creating a cake is in any way participation in the wedding).
What’s the point of beliefs if you don’t act on them?
Try this logic exercise. We have this sentence:
What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, regardless of your belief of the inferiority of others.
You’re saying the “qualifier” regardless of your belief of the inferiority of others can alter What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. So let’s look at the possible values of belief of the inferiority of others. It can be
[ul]
[li]others are inferior[/li][li]others are not inferior[/li][li]some others are and some others aren’t[/li][/ul]
and let’s substitute
[ul]
[li]What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, since you believe others are inferior.[/li][li]What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, since you believe others are not inferior.[/li][li]What the government should be in is in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally, since you believe some others are inferior and some others aren’t inferior.[/li][/ul]
In all cases, you believe the government should be in the business of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. The phrase regardless of your belief of the inferiority of others means its doesn’t matter what my belief is.
The same logic applies to Miller’s post (unless you’re arguing that Miller meant there are all kinds of other characteristics other than race, religion, gender, or sexuality that allow you to not offer your service to a member of the public like height or facial hair).