When the couple “found out what he really believed about same-sex marriage,” Dreher writes, they “balked, and demanded their money back — and the mob threatened the business if they didn’t yield.” Which is ultimately to say that White and Renouf sought to break their contract — not, you will note, because he was rude or because he failed to deliver on his promises, but because they made a window into his soul and they did not like what they saw — and then, when he objected, to subject him to bullying and to threats until he caved. Is that “tolerance”?1. It's not breaking a contract to ask to be released from a deal. The very fact that Cooke added "sought" shows that "breaking" (like "breaching") is the wrong word. Parties to a contract can reach a new agreement, ending the deal. That doesn't break the contract. It rescinds the contract by mutual agreement.
2. Cooke leaves readers to think that the jeweler merely held an opinion — in his mind, in his soul — and people peered into that secret, personal space and took umbrage. But — click on the link in Cooke's article and get to the news story — the jeweler posted a sign in his store: "The sanctity of marriage is under attack. Let's keep marriage between a man and a woman." This sign was posted after they made the deal to buy the rings, and at that point they felt bad about having their rings — the rings that are highly symbolic to them — coming from that place. The jeweler displayed a message of disrespect to them and they objected.
3. What if a black person made a restaurant reservation and showed up to find racist posters on the wall but the maitre d' was perfectly polite and ready to seat him? Wouldn't you support the customer's request to be released from the reservation without having his card charged? If the restaurant had a policy of charging customers who don't follow through on reservations, that policy was clearly explained at the time of phone call making the reservation, and the restaurant insisted on charging, what would you think if the customer went on Facebook and told his story and got a lot of negative PR for the restaurant, hurting its business?
4. Businesses may choose (or be required) to provide service without discrimination against gay people, but that doesn't create a reciprocal obligation in consumers, requiring them not to take gay-friendliness into account at all. There's nothing hypocritical about expecting businesses not to discriminate against you and still, when choosing which business to patronize, selecting the one that you think really respects you and other people you care about.
5. "Toleration" is a good standard, but it's not the best. (You may remember that James Madison, participating in the drafting of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, changed the word "toleration" — written by George Mason — to "free exercise.") You wouldn't go to a party where the invitation said your presence would be tolerated. You'd feel bad about needing to accept a job offer that said you would be tolerated as an employee. If you have a choice of businesses to patronize, you might say: I don't give a damn what they really think of me as long as they're polite — I'll pick the one with the best product. Fine. That's you. But somebody else might say: As long as the products are pretty similar, I'm going to patronize the business that shares my politics (or my religion or my culture).
6. A jeweler who puts up signs expressing various religious messages is seeking the advantages to be gained by customers choosing businesses according to the politics/religion of the proprietor. He's stimulating the marketplace with the expression of opinion, getting some customers and losing others. Let's not pretend he's a humble little shopkeeper getting bullied by mean people who won't let him harbor thoughts deemed impure. When you speak, you might cause others not to like you and to want to avoid your business. That's part of free speech!
पोस्ट्स
३५५ टिप्पण्या:
355 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»You're dressing it up nicely but they still forced him, by coercion, to give back the money. You're using legal niceties to obstufcate the fact that was punished for his views not his actions. Posting the sign only alerted the couple to his views. Where might this stop then?
I'd like to buy a ring, that one is very nice, but first a few questions on your politics -
It might work, I'll try it at the lumber yard. Gimme 2 8 foot two by fours but first, what is your opinion on the Great Compromise?
As to your point number 6. No, the loonie left has NEVER tried bullying or intimidation to get their way. He IS one little shop keeper against the paid and unpaid unwashed that always try to shout down opposing viewpoints. And all that back him are subjected to the same heckling.
ps.
the jeweler did work at their request. he SHOULD be paid for that work at the very least. That this was missed in your arguments is telling of an agenda.
You seem awfully tolerant of bullying Althouse, both here and in your unwavering support of Dan Savage. is there something you're not telling us? Perhaps you have a vindictive streak?
Althouse must have a dog in this hunt to get so legally defensive.
Let me understand this.
If they refuse to sell rings to a gay couple because they oppose gay marriage, they are in the wrong and can be sued.
If the sell the rings and then the gay couple decides their views are not "correct" they again are in the wrong and may be sued.
So - basically, if you oppose gay marriage you may be treated like crap no matter what you do.
If you do business solely with people who agree with your worldview, you end up doing no business at all.
The Lesbian Couple seems like a couple of easily wilting flowers here, too easily outraged. Don't seek acceptance from the world for you life, you'll only be disappointed. That's my advice.
But then, I could not tell you where my wedding ring came from. I prefer the love in our marriage to be more representative of the vows than two easily-lost rings.
"You're dressing it up nicely but they still forced him, by coercion, to give back the money."
They didn't force him. They asked to be let out of a deal. He didn't have to agree. He saw it as being in his interest in the end to agree.
"You're using legal niceties to obstufcate the fact that was punished for his views not his actions."
No. He took the action of posting the sign in his store. He experienced market forces. If people don't like your business and tell all their friends not to shop there, is that punishment? It's speech and the marketplace.
"Posting the sign only alerted the couple to his views."
Yeah, that's how speech works. It's a pretty damned important step: the transition from thinking to speaking. It's huge! It's not some little nothing!
"Where might this stop then?"
You're arguing slippery slope? Be specific. Do you seriously think customers shouldn't make decisions based on the signs posted in a store? That there's no stopping the slide from individual customer shopping decisions to government mind control?
Althouse must have a dog in this hunt
I believe she has admitted to a non-zero number of gay children. Perhaps she longs for grandchildren. Or perhaps "cruel neutrality" is a mask.
Commenters here seem to be missing the main point. Under this set of facts, the shopkeeper went looking for a fight. He (or we) can hardly complain now that he's found it.
I'm going to skip ahead and answer now the people who will claim he was not looking for a fight--don't be obtuse. Prof. Althouse was absolutely right that he put up that sign to attract the kind of people who agree with him on that particular political point; the flip side works just as well--he chose to repel he people who disagree with him.
"I'd like to buy a ring, that one is very nice, but first a few questions on your politics -"
No, that's not what happened. If it had, they wouldn't have ordered the rings in the first place. They were ready to buy in a normal businesslike way, but later the sign was there.
The store took the affirmative step in infusing the marketplace with political opinion. The customers only reacted to that. Why shouldn't they?!
"the jeweler did work at their request. he SHOULD be paid for that work at the very least. That this was missed in your arguments is telling of an agenda."
They requested to be let out of the deal. He'd already done design work, we're told. He could have insisted on the contract. He could have made some kind of deal to get some but not all of the money promised. He chose not to do that.
You are full of shit on this, Ann. We know why and tend to take you with large grains of salt on this type of issue but you are still full of shit.
1) As a legal question, does a contract still even exist in this case? the jewler did the work to the customer's satisfaction so completed his portion. According to the article, the customers paid so completed theirs. Seems to me that the contract is at an end but that may be a question for a lawyer.
2) They didn't ask for their money back, which would make it a voluntary exchange, which I am all in favor of. They extorted their money back.
If Moe the Nose comes in and tells the jeweler "Nice shop you got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Now give me $50 a week." that would be extortion and illegal.
Why is it any different because gays do it?
Oh, yeah, sorry. I forgot.
Even so, I think this is despicable behavior on the part of the lesbians.
It should be answered with pitchforks tar and feathers as your buddy Insty likes to say.
John Henry
Carnifex said: ps.
the jeweler did work at their request. he SHOULD be paid for that work at the very least.
That is an important point. Suppose a carpenter does work on my house and expends time and materials. If I then decide I don't like his political or moral views am I entitled to stiff him on the work?
If a jeweler crafts custom rings, is the customer entitled to later stiff him if they don't like his views?
It bothers me when fellow supporters of gay marriage like Althouse can't just condemn this couple's behavior.
Why go so far to explain it away? You can support gay people and gay marriage and still see this clearly really bad behavior.
They put down a deposit. When they no longer wanted the rings they should have forfeited the deposit. They wanted the deposit back too.
I once put a deposit on the purchase of a house. The septic system failed inspection and wold cost thousands to fix. I withdrew my offer and lost my deposit. Should I have found something objectionable about the owner's opinions?
But the incident nevertheless illustrates the overarching hypocrisy of the left on this issue. This illustrates quite nicely that the issue is NOT access to wedding venues, cakes, jewelry, etc. I haven't yet seen a report of a gay marriage that couldn't take place because there was no venue in town, no baker within a 30 mile radius willing to work for the couple. To the contrary, activist litigants have CHOSEN to go to a store that they know ahead of time will refuse them service, just to sue them.
Why would you want a cake baked by someone who doesn't believe in what you're doing?
No, the left in this area wants to punish thought-crimes, and this is a nice illustration. It's not about non-discrimination in providing the service, it's about banishing the bad thoughts, using the force of law and government.
I have zero objection to a couple deciding they don't like doing business with some vendor based on his political views (is this jeweler organized as a corporation? I guess corporations CAN have political or religious views after all!). I question how this particular couple managed to make the initial purchase decision without being aware of the jeweler's views, but that's another matter.
As for your point 3, if a business had such racist posters on the wall, do you truly believe that there would be no lawsuits brought against them for discrimination? Certainly in the workplace, even if you could show that all races and genders made absolutely identical wages and had the exact same chance of promotion, being fired, etc., the racist posters would leave the employer wide open to a very successful hostile environment lawsuit.
How long before this poor jeweler is sued by a gay couple because they WANT to buy some jewelry from him, but his hostile attitude towards their sexual orientation prevents them from doing so, even though he will serve them and sell them whatever they want? And for a custom piece of jewelry, how much of your own money would you be willing to put up to indemnify him against an after-the-fact claim that he intentionally made a sub-standard piece of work because of his views about the gay wedding you were planning?
The store took the affirmative step in infusing the marketplace with political opinion. The customers only reacted to that. Why shouldn't they?!
Because they got the rings they wanted for the price they agreed upon.
"Let me understand this. If they refuse to sell rings to a gay couple because they oppose gay marriage, they are in the wrong and can be sued."
Only if there is some kind of legal requirement and there's no religious exemption. I don't know the law in Canada. But the majoritarian political process can generally make rules about non-discrimination in commercial enterprises.
"If the sell the rings and then the gay couple decides their views are not "correct" they again are in the wrong and may be sued."
Sued? How? I don't see anyone saying that. It's just free market stuff. If they sell the rings but engage in expressions of disapproval of gay people, gay people might decide not to shop there. They lose some business.
"So - basically, if you oppose gay marriage you may be treated like crap no matter what you do."
If you express hostility to other people, they aren't going to like it. That's called living in reality. You can't make people invite you to their parties and you can't force them to shop in your store. Quit whining about free speech and the free market. Speech has consequences. That's what's so great about it. Free speech includes the freedom not to speak. Feel free not to speak, but you can't demand that other people like what you say. That's OUR freedom of thought. We might not like you.
B.S. madam.
The last sentence in the news article says the rings are ready to be picked up, i.e. it is too late to "come to other agreements."
The ladies ordered custom rings to be made, they got what they ordered, and now need to pay for it.
"The jeweler displayed a message of disrespect to them and they objected."
Oh sheesh, their feelings were hurt.
Posting one's viewpoint is sign of disrespect? Wowee Ann, you lost me here.
Another question, how long to the lesbians have the right to say what signs the jeweler hangs in his shop?
A week? A month? A year? Forever?
I can see a lawsuit a year later when the lesbian couple gets divorced. They can say that the jeweler did not disclose his hatred of gay marriage (Because we all know that anything less than complete fawning support is "hatred") and the ring was cursed.
They can also say that, a year into their marriage, having learned his views, they started having doubts. This caused their marriage to fall apart and they want damages.
They may not win, though sillier suits have been brought, but the jeweler is still out the time and expense of defending.
This is extortion, plain and simple and should not be stood for.
And you, a law professor of all people.
John Henry
Again, nicely worded but still the same outcome. The jeweler, displaying more social grace than this customers let them out of the deal. Their objections were petty and quite venal. They would have been on a much firmer moral footing if they had gone to him - like adults - and said "we just want to you to know that we object to your *sign* but will honor our commitment to purchase from you." As it was, both their actions and your justifications are petty. The jeweler, though caving to the couple's asinine objections was acting like the adult here.
I find your reaction to this telling. It speaks to your all our nothing support for SSM no matter what the views of people that object. And that you find justification is punishing people for their free speech.
"Posting one's viewpoint is sign of disrespect?"
Depends on the viewpoint. If I put up a slgn saying "Humperdink dinks humps," I would be disrespecting you. The fact that it is, in fact, my viewpoint doesn't change that.
By the way, posting a sign doesn't establish that it's your sincerely held belief. I assume signs in a store are there for business purposes. "We love our customers," etc.
"A jeweler who puts up signs expressing various religious messages is seeking the advantages to be gained by customers choosing businesses according to the politics/religion of the proprietor. "
That is not necessarily true. It may well be that the jeweler is simply expressing his beliefs as a Christian, not attempting to influence business but rather to save souls. Even jewelers can be concerned about something other than money!
"Their contract was fulfilled when they asked for their money back. They should NOT gotten their $ back since they got the service they requested."
They bought a product. They didn't keep it. People return products and get their money back all the time. Most shopkeepers are pretty accommodating about returns.
It may be true that there was a "no returns" policy, but the shopkeeper is still free to take the return and they are free to ask. No contract is broken when it's all agreed on.
Slippery slope arguments should never be used when discussing gay rights. It's not like we moved from 'We just want to be left alone' to 'Bake us a cake or you'll be run out of business'.
Oh, wait.
Suppose the jeweler had placed a sign that said:
"We do not support gay marriage. We will serve everyone with love and respect but if you want a wedding ring for a same sex marriage, you might be better off going to Rick's Rocks down the street."
Would you be OK with a sign like this? Would that have absolved the jewler in this case? At least in your mind.
Or would it be hateful and subject to the full wrath of the GBLTWXYZ furies?
To compare it to the case of the blacks in the restaurant, if the black knew in advance about the anti-black signs, got full and perfect service anyway, would they have any room to object?
You sound like one of these Democrats that are in favor of an amendment overturning the 1st Amendment.
John Henry
Althouse posts thing on her blog all day long, some of which may hurt other people's opinions.
The "splooge stooge" stuff, for example.
Should a male law student of hers demand money back for the class he has taken with her, because he is offended and feels hated by her opinion? Should the university abide by that?
Perhaps! She willfully put the opinion out there.
"You are full of shit on this, Ann...."
I choose not to read the rest of a comment that begins like that. You showed disrespect and I choose not subject myself to that.
See how that works?
Why is this even a story in the first place? A couple goes in, contracts for a purchase, changes their mind, asks for, and gets, a refund.
Oh. Right. Left wing media, agenda, etc.
"It bothers me when fellow supporters of gay marriage like Althouse can't just condemn this couple's behavior.
Why go so far to explain it away? You can support gay people and gay marriage and still see this clearly really bad behavior."
It bothers me that you can't spell out where I am wrong or why the couples behavior is so clearly bad. You say that I go "so far" and wonder about my motives, but you won't take the trouble to develop your side of it. Why not? Without more, my inference is that you can't meet my arguments and you are frustrated. Pony up!
It may be true that there was a "no returns" policy, but the shopkeeper is still free to take the return and they are free to ask. No contract is broken when it's all agreed on.
Under duress.
But come on. Just because he gave in for fear of reprisal doesn't make what the couple did *excusable*.
It bothers me that you can't spell out where I am wrong or why the couples behavior is so clearly bad. You say that I go "so far" and wonder about my motives, but you won't take the trouble to develop your side of it. Why not? Without more, my inference is that you can't meet my arguments and you are frustrated. Pony up!
I don't wonder about your motives.
I just woke up. I heartily disagree with you.
My side of it is this: You are excusing horrible behavior.
re Dan Savage:
Let's never forget that he literally engaged in germ warfare in the 2004(?) election. That should put him beyond the pale of any sentient human being. He should be convicted jailed and shunned.
But he is gay so it is OK.
For those who forget, during the campaign he visited various Repo campaign offices while having flu and smeared snot on doorknobs, hoping to cause illness. Possibly fatal illness as 30-40,000 Americans die of flu annually.
Then he bragged about it. Since he is gay, he seems to be immune to prosecution.
And Ann seems to think he is a neat guy.
John Henry
“However, due to posting our religious beliefs, many people in Newfoundland want us to shut down business — that’s what they’ve been telling us.”
He said some threats came with names and others were anonymous.
“One of them states that ‘you better give them the money back or you will be very, very sorry,’” he said.
----------------------------------------------------
Why has no one mentioned that the jeweler was threatened by the Gaystapo?
Buyer's remorse.
Seller's remorse.
Gay marriage remorse?
Of course Ann's arguments work in the opposite case: where a two supporters of traditional marriage order their wedding rings from a jeweler, pay for them, but later find out the jeweler supports same sex marriage. The couple then demands their money back.
In both cases the jeweler is being pressured to take a loss because of his personal belief on the issue of same sex marriage.
Hump said;"Posting one's viewpoint is sign of disrespect?"
Ann said: "Depends on the viewpoint. If I put up a slgn saying "Humperdink dinks humps," I would be disrespecting you. The fact that it is, in fact, my viewpoint doesn't change that.
By the way, posting a sign doesn't establish that it's your sincerely held belief. I assume signs in a store are there for business purposes. "We love our customers," etc."
Hump responds:That's a stretch and half Ann. He didn't not call out anyone's name. You may (a big maybe) have a point if they were his only customers.
Signs in stores for business purposes? Some are, some are not. Take a stroll through any business district. You will see signs for all types events, viewpoints, patriotism, causes ("save the whale", "frack off").
They requested to be let out of the deal. He'd already done design work, we're told. He could have insisted on the contract. He could have made some kind of deal to get some but not all of the money promised. He chose not to do that.
The store owner only chose to refund the money because of threats:
He said he was worried giving a refund, or taking the posters down, would send a message that it’s possible to bully people in Canada for expressing their beliefs. But Monday afternoon he sent an email to The Telegram saying they have decided to give the refund after all.
Since the story emerged Saturday, Jardon, who owns the store with his brother, said he has been bullied, intimidated and even threatened.
“One of the reasons my family chose to move to Canada was the rights that it offered, the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, both of which at the time seemed to be very limited in Mexico,” he said.
“However, due to posting our religious beliefs, many people in Newfoundland want us to shut down business — that’s what they’ve been telling us.”
He said some threats came with names and others were anonymous.
“One of them states that ‘you better give them the money back or you will be very, very sorry,’” he said.
"They didn't force him. They asked to be let out of a deal. He didn't have to agree. He saw it as being in his interest in the end to agree. "
Bullshit !
He was attacked and threatened with being driven out of town. The last I read, the store is closed. Those were CUSTOM rings and not standard pieces.
You are really out of bounds here.
"They put down a deposit. When they no longer wanted the rings they should have forfeited the deposit. They wanted the deposit back too."
What's wrong with trying to get your deposit back?
"I once put a deposit on the purchase of a house. The septic system failed inspection and wold cost thousands to fix. I withdrew my offer and lost my deposit. Should I have found something objectionable about the owner's opinions?"
You had something objectionable, the horrible septic system. That's the parallel if you want to do analogies. There would not have been anything wrong with your attempting to renegotiate the deal or to try to talk them into returning the deposit even if they were not legally obligated to do that. What if you knew that they knew all along the system was bad and took the deposit knowing you'd forfeit it rather than get stuck with the faulty system?
It appears by the facts the jeweler was making a political, and not religious statement.
He knew up front the couple were gay and proceeded knowingly. Of course if he refused, he would have been forced to provide service
Weird huh?
This wasn't an off the shelf purchase, but custom work.
If a lawyer had billed them for 10 hours of routine work,and they paid, could they get their money back if they found out he or she held views that offend them?
he store owner only chose to refund the money because of threats:
Exactly, Lydia.
And we've seen this from other people against other businesses as well. We can pretend they are all just separate incidents where the business owner decided to act on his own accord, or we can recognize that some people (with whom I otherwise agree!) are acting in an intolerable way.
"But the majoritarian political process"
Interesting choice of words there, Ann.
Why did you go with "majoritarian" rather than "democratic"?
John Henry
I have to agree with Althouse on point #6, although I truly despise the bullying tactics of the fascist left.
Francisco D said...
the Fascist!!! left.
FIFY
That's fine, Ann. The disrespect was fully intended.
It was kind of the whole point of starting the note like that.
Thanks for noticing.
John Henry
You seem awfully tolerant of bullying, Althouse, both here and in your unwavering support of Dan Savage. Is there something you're not telling us? Perhaps you have a vindictive streak?
[reposted to correct typos]
If you force someone to withdraw from a contract, it's obviously breaching the contract. It doesn't matter if they are politically more fashionable.
The work was already done.
When you speak, you might cause others not to like you and to want to avoid your business. That's part of free speech!
Unless of course you are a gay couple demanding that someone cater your gay wedding. Then people aren't allowed to avoid your business.
is there something you're not telling us? Perhaps you have a vindictive streak?
Althouse, like most on the Left, is simply a very poor winner.
Professor, this story is in the news ONLY because of efforts in the United States (and presumably elsewhere) to mandate by law that businesses such as the jeweler must provide services in support of weddings that conflict with their own religious beliefs. I have yet to see any opponents of gay marriage who want to ban private businesses from making cakes or rings or renting out wedding venues to them. They may choose not to frequent those businesses, but they do not try to bar them by law from performing such services as they wish.
But the anti-freedom lobby DOES want to have the law regulate what types of weddings that businesses such as this jeweler's must support, regardless of how that affects their own consciences.
This example highlights an argument made in favor of freedom in this area. Why would a couple WANT a cake or a ring or photographs made by someone who believes that what the couple is doing is sinful or wrong?
Are you in favor of or opposed to laws mandating that a business in the wedding industry provide services to gay weddings?
"The jeweler displayed a message of disrespect to them and they objected."
That isn't correct, unless he mentioned them by name. He stated a general opinion, that's all.
Isn't this all just political theater?
They find someone willing to express a contrary opinion, and then find a way to publicize the same.
"No, the left in this area wants to punish thought-crimes..."
A sign in a store is not a thought. You've got to make the speech/thought distinction.
"I question how this particular couple managed to make the initial purchase decision without being aware of the jeweler's views, but that's another matter."
Because when they went in, this sign was not up. Later, it was. Consider that the sign might have been put up precisely because the business-owner didn't want to sell wedding rings to gay couples. He sold to them when they walked in. He was polite. That doesn't mean he liked it. Later the sign goes up. Quite an affront, from their perspective!
"As for your point 3, if a business had such racist posters on the wall, do you truly believe that there would be no lawsuits brought against them for discrimination? Certainly in the workplace, even if you could show that all races and genders made absolutely identical wages and had the exact same chance of promotion, being fired, etc., the racist posters would leave the employer wide open to a very successful hostile environment lawsuit."
Yeah, but that's not the question asked.
BTW: Just to be clear, Ann, my comment about you being full of shit on this was meant to be disrespectful to your opinion, not to you personally.
If you did take it personally, I am sorry you were offended.
John Henry
@Maybee What, exactly, was "horrible" about the couple's behavior?
I can see that the jeweler said he received "threats," but these were not from the couple. I condemn true threats of illegal behavior. What, exactly, were the threats? I saw the statement that he'd be "sorry" if he didn't give the couple their money back.
I love Shawara and Filafel. Seriously. Better than a Gyro and fries. And the Chicago suburbs where I used to live had a lot of great places.
When I would eat at those establishments I was eerily aware that the owners, cooks, and other patrons opposed Israel, Christianity etc...
They never refused me service, and I was always happy to pay.
"They didn't force him"
Riight.
"majoritarian political process"
Except that when the process reaches the wrong result, it needs to be overturned by our countermajoritarian overlords.
"BTW: Just to be clear, Ann, my comment about you being full of shit on this was meant to be disrespectful to your opinion, not to you personally."
If that's true, John Henry, then you need to learn to write more clearly. Try this: "Your opinion is full of shit." Or: "I am full of shit but I'm going to leave a comment anyway."
What, exactly, was "horrible" about the couple's behavior?
Rick from Casablanca is a piker compared to Althouse and the behavior of gay people.
@Maybee What, exactly, was "horrible" about the couple's behavior?
They demanded their money back after contracting for, and getting, custom rings they wanted. They then drew attention to the situation to people they knew would desire to hurt the business.
If I had bought a ring for Jessica Alba to commemorate her amazing blow-jobs, and then I returned to the store and found a sign posted that said "I Do Not Like Jessica Alba" I would punch the jeweler in the face, staple the poster to his chest and then return home to Jessica Alba for some fierce sex. Adrenaline pumping, all that.
I am Laslo.
People need to stop talking past one another if there is to be gainful takeaways from the words being fluttered about.
Our host needs to address the mob tactics alleged in a substantive manner in order to provide evidence to convince the reader she doesn't think barbarism, i.e. terrorism, is acceptable if done by those whom she would advocate on behalf of.
The reader needs to see this gap and address it, the damn meat chunk of the issue here.
(There will be no consequences if people follow or do not follow my demands, and I only phrase my thoughts as "demands" because of the noted impotence of my words.)
What's the difference between the behavior of these lesbians and a racists returning goods or boycotting a business becacause it is minority owned? No difference at all.
I will argue slippery slope. This is cultural takeover. The left has taken over the argument, and disagreeing with them is considered unspeakable and possibly criminal.
This is what the left does. This is the slippery slope. They do not admit what they believe in until it is too late to engage in debate. Obama believes in same-sex marriage. So does Hillary. He did not admit it until they thought it was politically a good idea.
You will not be allowed to disagree. And the courts have been used as weaponry in this debate. It is disgusting, and anti-American.
I say this (sigh) as a supporter of same-sex marriage. Why do I have to add that comment?
To argue that you do not understand this argument is puerile.
Radio Derb
A homosexual who made a nuisance of himself in public facilities, or proselytized his lifestyle to the impressionable young, would come to the attention of the police, and quite right too. Otherwise nobody minded them. In my college days in the mid-1960s I lived in rented rooms all over north London. One house I rented a room in was the home of two homosexual men. They were very nice. I didn't mind them, and they didn't bother me. One of them used to do the housework, I remember, and the other did the shopping.
That was the old, civilized attitude. We called it "tolerance."
Well, there's no more of that in the brave new world of liberalism.
How does Derb's "tolerance" manage to differ from Althouse's analysis
"Toleration" is a good standard, but it's not the best. (You may remember that James Madison, participating in the drafting of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, changed the word "toleration" — written by George Mason — to "free exercise.") You wouldn't go to a party where the invitation said your presence would be tolerated.
Suppose a university advertised, "Your views, whatever they are, will be tolerated here." Is that a disinvitation or its opposite.
Meade: Instead of defending her, how about teaching her to get as goods as she gives?
So you don't believe a business has First Amendment rights, professor? That's the only basis I see for your distinction between a thought-crime and expressing the thought-crime through signs posted in the business.
Does your analysis of this case depend on the jeweler having posted the signs in his store? What if the jeweler, in his individual capacity, had, say, contributed to California's Prop 8, and his customers had discovered that?
Since you are so keen to bring in racial analogies to this case, let's try this one:
Suppose a KKK member hires a photographer for his white-pride-themed wedding. He puts down a deposit. On the day of the wedding, the photography company sends a black photographer to take the pictures. When the KKK member had visited their shop, all of the employees he saw were white. Unbeknown to him, the white owner of the store had a wry sense of humor whose parents had marched with Dr. King at Selma. The week after a large biker rally (in town for the wedding) had damaged many local businesses, the KKK member goes into the photographer's shop and demands a refund of his deposit.
Do you support the KKK member and the photographer coming to a new arrangement, notwithstanding their previous contractual obligations?
I wonder why this topic is being moderated?
It's fun pretending to be stupid, isn't it?
Wow. I cannot post a comment.
Quite the thread for Memorial Day.
Why switch point number 3 to a racist thing?
How about this-
A jeweler makes custom wedding rings for a couple who belongs to a smallish but strong church. Upon coming to pick up the rings, the couple notices a rainbow flag and a "we gladly support gay marriage" sign in the store.
The couple demands their money back, because the idea of gay marriage is against their religion. They bring their church members into it, and the church members threaten the business.
Can't we find our way to criticize the church members and the couple in such a situation, and not just say, la-di-dah, another day in the world of business!
"Are you in favor of or opposed to laws mandating that a business in the wedding industry provide services to gay weddings?"
Depends on the definition of "a business in the wedding industry."
I think the services that are at all in the "speech" category (like cake decorating and photography) should not be compelled. But I think anti-discrimination laws for restaurants and shops are fine. I do think the market could take care of it though, especially with the ability to facilitate speech through Facebook and other social media, as happened in this case.
"Shut up," they explained.
"I wonder why this topic is being moderated?"
To exclude a problem commenter that I was deleting.
Wow. I pay taxes to support a public school system filled with left leaning union members that pollute kids with modern intellectual moral relatively and disdain for Jesus Christ. Can't stand the ideology, but I still have to pay.
They don't seem to willing to give me my money back.
"This example highlights an argument made in favor of freedom in this area. Why would a couple WANT a cake or a ring or photographs made by someone who believes that what the couple is doing is sinful or wrong."
Okay let's just start over.
The couple found out after they ordered the rings that they did not want the rings.
Are we clear? Think it through. They ordered the rings, okay. Then, a sign was displayed that made them not want the rings. Are you still with me here?
Christian and Jewish hetero family men...
When are you going to cease deceiving yourselves and see clearly what this evil, rotten woman, Althouse, is doing?
You are required to kiss gay ass. Only decades removed from the onset of the epidemic that that stereotypical gay behavior caused... in the midst of an epidemic that has already killed 100 million people, you are required to be penitent to to kiss gay ass.
She represents an institution that is tormenting and destroying your sons for wanting to engage in normal sex with a woman.
Althouse is your enemy. She's been playing you with the "just like a nigger under Jim Crow" gambit for decades.
Recognize this rotten woman for what she is... an existential enemy to be defeated. Start plotting to drive her and her evil fag hag and lezzies sisters out of your institutions. The time for reasoning with awful, rotten, sadistic woman like Althouse is over.
Fuck having "hypothetical" conversations with this rotten, evil woman. It's time for war.
If you express hostility to other people, they aren't going to like it. That's called living in reality. You can't make people invite you to their parties and you can't force them to shop in your store. Quit whining about free speech and the free market. Speech has consequences. That's what's so great about it. Free speech includes the freedom not to speak. Feel free not to speak, but you can't demand that other people like what you say. That's OUR freedom of thought. We might not like you.
Oh give it a rest, Althouse. Your legal "reasoning" on this and related issues is one long sophistic exercise in justifying the legal (not social) limitation of the free speech and freedom of association rights of people whose views you don't like.
What about male university students getting their money back after the stooge spiooge comments?
Why should a university let a professor make comments that are offensive to some students? Is that good business?
I hope this couple will wear helmets and seat belts in their high chairs.
And now the jeweler has two Custom Sappho rings he will have to peddle. And his time, of course, was worthless.
I think the services that are at all in the "speech" category (like cake decorating and photography) should not be compelled. But I think anti-discrimination laws for restaurants and shops are fine. I do think the market could take care of it though, especially with the ability to facilitate speech through Facebook and other social media, as happened in this case.
That's an entirely reasonable position to take. I would extend it a bit further to the venue itself as well, because I think there are a lot of expressive touches that go into that, beyond just providing real estate for rent. But that's a quibble.
If the jeweler here had decided NOT to refund the couple's money, and faced criticism and attack for doing so (much as that poor pizza place did when they were quizzed by the journalist on the entirely hypothetical question of whether they would cater pizza to a gay wedding), would you defend the principle of contract, that there is no legal requirement for the jeweler to return the money, and that he should not be attacked for refusing to relinquish his contractual right to be paid for the services he rendered?
Let me just comment that all of my comments are visible here. I think the professor is to be commended for her openness and comment moderation policies.
Althouse: I do think the market could take care of it though, especially with the ability to facilitate speech through Facebook and other social media, as happened in this case.
That's partway to the Epstein analysis, except shaming isn't involved for the market to work.
The market works by supplying a service that the provider wants to provide and the customer wants to obtain at a mutually advantageous price.
Providers, in this case, differ in willingness to provide. So go to another provider. Find a mutually advantageous exchange, not one that needs compulsion.
The legal mistake happened in the 60s. Compulsion should only happen when the market doesn't work. It doesn't work if it's prevented by legal means (no serving blacks in white establishments) or private violence (your store burns down if you serve blacks). That's not the case here.
"'@Maybee What, exactly, was "horrible" about the couple's behavior?' They demanded their money back after contracting for, and getting, custom rings they wanted. They then drew attention to the situation to people they knew would desire to hurt the business."
Why is that horrible? People try to return things they bought all the time. It's pretty normal. Of course, the "custom" part is a special burden to the shopkeeper, but he could choose to accommodate them. It's not horrible to ASK for the accommodation.
Is it horrible to go public with your story? Why? It's a true story. The part about ordering the custom rings is part of the story that gets heard. What's horrible about putting the true story out there for people to react to?
They wanted to say that they felt bad about having rings that were sold to them by a place that seemed like it was being nice to them but actually disapproved of what they were doing and posted a sign about that disapproval but had taken their money. That's how they saw it, and they weren't lying, apparently.
What's horrible?
From the article linked by Charles CW Cooke:
"When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see [LGBT rainbow flags], and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don't have a problem with them. I accept it. I chose to come to Canada... and we accept the whole package... I don't discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. For the same reason, I ask to have the same respect in return, especially when it's in my own business."
Jardon said he's getting a big backlash from social media.
"I had to shut down the Facebook page because of so many hate emails and phone calls and just, really nasty stuff," he said.
When asked if he would offer a refund to the couple, Jardon said he won't be bullied into apologizing for his beliefs or to work for free.
He said the finished rings are ready to be picked up; White and Renouf just have to pay the balance.
He was bullied into working for free.
There are rainbow flags everywhere in his area.
Again, imagine if this were him trying to get his money back after noticing a rainbow flag in a store in which he did business.
I bet we could find some room to criticize him, as the customer. I bet we wouldn't be reading about threats to the business.
Is it horrible to go public with your story? Why? It's a true story. The part about ordering the custom rings is part of the story that gets heard. What's horrible about putting the true story out there for people to react to?
Because they know they are hurting his business, and they want to.
"Suppose a university advertised, "Your views, whatever they are, will be tolerated here." Is that a disinvitation or its opposite."
It's a middle position. In a repressive society, it would be welcome.
In America, students expect something more like: Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere we believe the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.
They wanted to say that they felt bad about having rings that were sold to them by a place that seemed like it was being nice to them but actually disapproved of what they were doing and posted a sign about that disapproval but had taken their money. That's how they saw it, and they weren't lying, apparently.
What's horrible?
They wanted to hurt his business, and that's what they set out to do.
I guess I am wondering how long it will be until gay people are secure in themselves and their newly found freedom to marry. Will they need to be coddled forever?
The couple ordered two custom rings (this is important), paid for them at an agreed upon price, and later found out that the merchant held an opinion that they disagreed with. Then had buyers remorse. I think this sums up the situation accurately from what I have read. No contracts seem to have been broken.
Instead of confidently moving on with their lives, the couple decides to publicly shame the merchant and request their money back.
I find things out after the fact about merchants or acquaintances or recording artists all the time. I choose to either continue to patronize them or quite simply - move on. They haven't hurt me or broken a contract so who cares.
They wanted to say that they felt bad about having rings that were sold to them by a place that seemed like it was being nice to them but actually disapproved of what they were doing and posted a sign about that disapproval but had taken their money. That's how they saw it, and they weren't lying, apparently.
What if the shopkeeper was fine with civil unions but only wanted to say it's not marriage?
It's not disapproval then, but political. You can't take away my word like that, no matter how many votes you pretend to have, or something like that.
So in particular it's not bigotry or ignorance. At least on the shopkeeper's part.
Again, you seem not to want to address the "Splooge Stooge" anti-male commentary you put up on your blog, and how it could relate to your business.
But then, college professors have tenure, right? To keep from facing financial repercussions for expressing unpopular opinions?
Why do you deserve this more than him?
" Later the sign goes up. Quite an affront, from their perspective!"
If you read the story, he said he put up signs from time to time.
Had they declined to shop there, I would have no objection. He was threatened and told he would be forced out of business. He may have been since the last I saw, the shop is still closed.
You bias is just too obvious here.
It’s clear to me that the refund was not given to please the purchasers of the rings, who had buyers’ remorse due to their discovering the jeweler’s beliefs.
The refund was given because the jewelers had been threatened with loss of their business, and possibly violence, by the mob.
Our hostess supports the refund; she ideally believes that this was a “right outcome for the wrong reason.”
But she does not state this- she just says that the right outcome occurred.
Our hostess is analogous to the “moderate” Muslims, who silently deplore violence but pray for Sharia.
When the backlash comes, and it will, she will not be spared.
"So you don't believe a business has First Amendment rights, professor? That's the only basis I see for your distinction between a thought-crime and expressing the thought-crime through signs posted in the business."
A First Amendment right is a right against the government abridging your speech. Customers are not the government. I support free speech beyond the problem of govt restriction. For example, I support strong and discordant expression on this blog, though I am a private citizen. What you are confusing is the freedom to speak and some sort of entitlement that other people — private citizens — not dislike you or choose not to deal with you because of what you are saying. Speech is important because of the way it reveals thoughts, but some thoughts, when revealed, with affect what people think of you. You don't say everything you think. You lie and you dissemble. You bullshit. You flatter. It's up to you. Speech affects what other people think. Those thoughts matter too, and that's the point of speaking. To communicate with others. It's an immensely complicated interplay. I don't know how you imagine you'd control that.
"Does your analysis of this case depend on the jeweler having posted the signs in his store? What if the jeweler, in his individual capacity, had, say, contributed to California's Prop 8, and his customers had discovered that?"
Customers can decide where to shop on any basis they like! Obviously.
What's horrible is that this is mob rule by a minority. That happened back in the 60s. There will probably be a backlash. That will not be pretty.
"Suppose a university advertised, "Your views, whatever they are, will be tolerated here." Is that a disinvitation or its opposite."
It's a middle position. In a repressive society, it would be welcome.
Well let's change it to being a personal message to a conservative prospective student.
Then it's a positive invitation.
And old Derbyshire had toleration as a positive virtue. How did he manage to do that?
Althouse would enjoy and benefit from Empson's _The Structure of Complex Words_ even though it's not on Kindle.
He has a little bit of symbology and mechanism that he does not intend as science, but just a "Stick with this and let me show you some stuff you can do with it" attitude. In case he sounds idiotically male at first.
Answer to the mysterious invitation disinvitation performace of toleration, various of its connotations can be called up together by context. You have to do the whole performace of the word to analyze it, and say point out that in this or that case it goes a particular way. No good dreaming up your own usage to defeat another.
Althouse asked: "The store took the affirmative step in infusing the marketplace with political opinion. The customers only reacted to that. Why shouldn't they?!"
MadisonMan gave a good answer: "Don't seek acceptance from the world for you life, you'll only be disappointed."
Perhaps society should acquiesce to the right to marry. But the outrage over cake baking, ring making, etc is something else. It is an attempt to force people into accepting the propriety of gay marriage. Thing is, it will not succeed. In fact, it's counterproductive. It may happen over time, but it can not be achieved by bullying.
It's pretty rich to listen to someone with a nice, tenured position lecturing us little people on facing the consequences of our beliefs.
I suspect some commenters will be returning goods they bought through the Alhouse Amazon portal for a variety of reasons.
Seriously. Bob Ellison said:
"I will argue slippery slope. This is cultural takeover. The left has taken over the argument, and disagreeing with them is considered unspeakable and possibly criminal.
This is what the left does. This is the slippery slope."
Can't agree more. Error in logic becoming reality.
"They wanted to say that they felt bad about [doing business with] a place that seemed like it was being nice to them but actually disapproved of what they were doing and posted a sign about that disapproval but had taken their money. That's how they saw it, and they weren't lying, apparently."
So "tolerance" – in the sense that it occurs in my dictionary, where I will not discriminate against you even if I don't approve – isn't enough.
The shortest sense-linked path through the thesaurus from tolerance to intolerance is
tolerance
kindness
favor
bias
intolerance
(if done right, any 3 in a row have the same sense, though not any 4)
"What would Althouse say if the identities were reversed? The jeweler is gay or pro-gay-marriage, and the couple is anti-gay-marriage or a pair of anti-gay bigots."
The couple could choose a different jeweler, obviously. Shops used to (may still do) put rainbow stickers on the door to communicate that they were friendly to gay customers. I guess those stickers repelled some customers. Why should I care where the repelled customers go?
Let's say they made an order by phone, then showed up and saw the sticker and wanted to back out of the deal and had the gumption to explain that to the shopkeeper. I'm guessing the shopkeeper would say something like: Good, get out of my store. I have plenty of decent customers. I don't even want you. Or something less polite. Or more polite.
Oh, but what if the ordered item was CUSTOM. Then it might be harder for the shopkeeper to say good riddance. But the asshole customers would certainly be free to ask and to go on Facebook and bitch about it if they didn't like that. Go ahead. Do it. See how well your life works out if you do.
Professor, in your comment at 9:39am, you say that of course customers can choose to shop anywhere they like for any reason.
Of course they can. That's not the point in dispute.
The question is whether, in the public-signs versus Prop-8 supporter scenario I proposed, you would support a customer: (1) asking the jeweler to release them from his or her contractual obligations to pay for the custom rings, and (2) publicizing his or her reason for demanding a refund from the jeweler, intending to cause others to no longer do business there?
"Do it. See how well your life works out if you do."
And there you have it. Try and bully gays and see what happens.
Scent of triumphalism in that post.
"If you read the story, he said he put up signs from time to time."
Yeah, what's your point? That the anti-gay-marriage sign was probably just the next sign that would have gone up anyway? Maybe it's just a coincidence. I didn't claim to know that he put that sign up specifically because of them. I don't know that. But, yeah, I had seen that he did say that he does put up signs. It's not just some random sign though. It's a sign that relates to the product he sells, and I have to assume that he knew it would deflect some customers (including many straight people, probably more straight people than gay people).
I know of no place where I can return or not pay for a non standard product. If only a "reshelving" cost. A set of custom made rings, or whatever, have a very limited resale value. The jeweler is out not only his time to design and possibly make the rings, but materials that may not be reused. Designing the rings took time, and he should have been paid for his time. Time is not refundable.
This couple may not have directly threatened him, but by going public they knew that pressure would be applied by their "community".
There is a difference between legal and moral issues. Ann, you know the legal because you teach law, but at times I don't think you know the moral issues, in my opinion.
I'm guessing the shopkeeper would say something like: Good, get out of my store. I have plenty of decent customers. I don't even want you. Or something less polite. Or more polite.
Oh, but what if the ordered item was CUSTOM. Then it might be harder for the shopkeeper to say good riddance. But the asshole customers would certainly be free to ask and to go on Facebook and bitch about it if they didn't like that. Go ahead. Do it. See how well your life works out if you do.
Keep it more like this case. The jeweler doesn't want to say "good riddance". He's happy to do the business and does so politely.
Look, at least you can see the *hypothetical* customers are assholes. And you seem to acknowledge they would be the ones threatened.
So you do know who it is that does the threatening and makes it so people's lives don't work out so well for them.
I guess some of us still value the ability of people to express the unpopular opinion. Not go out for blood all the time.
And thank you for the refresher course on Con Law 101 about the distinction between governmental action and private action.
I'm well aware of the distinction. But regardless of what government does, if we as a society become a mob, or support mob actions against other members of society, we risk descending into a chaos all the same. And that's the question I raise here. If we use the power of boycotts and concerned mob action to beat individuals like this jeweler into submission, that reflects a society intolerant of true freedom of speech and thought.
On the other hand, it is certainly appropriate to call out people you don't like, to call attention to businesses that you don't support (be it because they sell GMO corn or don't believe in gay marriage, or sang anti-war songs or have bad politics or whatever). Criticism, often in strong and vehement tones, is essential to a free society as well.
There's no easy line. And we all, by our nature, draw that line in different places based on what we think about the particular speech at issue.
But there's a line, vague and meandering, somewhere. I don't think that this couple crossed the line. But I do fear that the anti-freedom lobby associated with some supporters of gay marriage move toward crossing that line. They support laws requiring even the cake makers and photographers (and presumably even professional writers of wedding vows, if there is such a thing) to participate in activities they disagree with, or else get out of the business of weddings altogether. And they absolutely want to pressure such backwards thinking individuals out of business altogether.
Is this crossing the line? I think it is. In today's society, making someone like this jeweler, or that pizza parlor owner, a focal point for national media scrutiny, for 2 whole countries to jabber about and scrutinize, I think that's setting us on a bad and dangerous path.
This couple says they don't want the rings anymore because they are tainted.
White said the rings were meant to be a symbol of love, but now the bands seem tainted.
"I think every time I look at that ring, I'll probably think of what we just went through," White said.
So....what is the point of forcing companies to do business with those with whom they disagree?
Isn't that just forcing the taint upon your life?
If the problem is you want your service delivered with love, we should make it more easy for businesses to declare who they love to do business with. Not less.
I keep reading about how the couple felt the rings had been "tainted" because of this and so they no longer wanted them. But in this video interview (at the 2:50 point), they said they were willing to keep the rings if the jeweler apologized and removed the sign. But the heretic refused to recant, so...
Somebody's got a case of the Mondays.
There's also a question of tactics here, professor. If one's goal is to support broad acceptance of gay marriage, will one further that cause more by being loudly intolerant of folks like this jeweler or by seeking softer methods of persuasion? I don't know the answer to that, I don't think the answer is objectively discernible on the front end. But it's a relevant question nonetheless.
What's horrible?
When the gay lynch mob finally turns to actually lynchings, Althouse will be the one with her hands in the air saying "Who could have seen that one coming?".
Ann, I appreciate the post. I grant your argument, as far as it goes, but wonder if it fails to take into account the broader debate about a worker's views on marriage.
When it came to baking wedding cakes, we were told that the personal views of the baker could not be taken into account - it was a purely economic, not moral, transaction. Consequently, any refusal or hesitancy on the part of the baker constituted discrimination.
Here, on the other hand, we are told that the jeweler's expressed (ok, posted) views on the matter are central to the acceptability of the purchased rings.
So... does labor matter to an economic transaction or not? The idea that a laborer formally participates in the creation of economic goods is not a new idea - Marx, for instance, champions the idea. But you can't have it both ways, can you?
It calls for a fairy tale, say Goldilocks and the Tolerant Jeweler.
Go ahead. Do it. See how well your life works out if you do.
...and we're back to my poor winner comment......
"Yeah, what's your point? That the anti-gay-marriage sign was probably just the next sign that would have gone up anyway? "
My "point" was that he had done this before and it had nothing to do with those particular customers.
The fact that these snowflakes were triggered by a sign they didn't even see (a "friend" saw the sign and took a photo) suggests that no contrary opinion, even from a polite shop keeper will be enough to keep the gaystapo away.
Brendan Eich had a history of being open to gay employees and no on ever accused him of anything EXCEPT contributing to Prop 8.
Your bias is blinding you to a real issue involving freedom of thought.
"If the jeweler here had decided NOT to refund the couple's money, and faced criticism and attack for doing so (much as that poor pizza place did when they were quizzed by the journalist on the entirely hypothetical question of whether they would cater pizza to a gay wedding), would you defend the principle of contract, that there is no legal requirement for the jeweler to return the money, and that he should not be attacked for refusing to relinquish his contractual right to be paid for the services he rendered?"
I'd "defend the principle of contract" but not the additional idea that you threw in, that "he should not be attacked for refusing to relinquish his contractual right to be paid for the services he rendered." The true story of the buying of the ring and the subsequent dismay at the sign and request for rescission of the contract can be told. There's nothing in the contract about not talking about what happened! They didn't contract away their free speech. We often pay for services and then complain about what we got.
"My "point" was that he had done this before and it had nothing to do with those particular customers."
You don't know that.
I'm careful to avoid making assertions about facts I don't know. I don't know why you'd say something that is clearly beyond you knowledge — "it had nothing to do with those particular customers." You undermine your credibility speaking like that. Is that just sloppiness or are you unable to see the discrepancy?
The jeweler, in the normal course of maleness, is not likely to be against lesbian activities.
So any hostility of his is to something else, most likely.
Say calling it marriage.
As opposed to a civil union.
He's in the marriage business. He likes it. He thinks he's doing God's work, not necessarily religiously but in a romantic comedy sense. It has a point to him.
We'd like civil union rings most likely would be an extension of his business rather than a refutation of it, to the jeweler.
Just guessing from majority opinion.
Of course, professor. But we ofter choose whether to support or oppose the exercise of that speech. Here, you've exerted considerable energy to defend the speech of the customers. You've said that they've done absolutely nothing wrong, including by asking the jeweler to forgo his contractual right to payment for the services he rendered, based on their subjective reaction based on learning of his political views.
My question is: is your support of their speech, and their efforts to renege on their contractual obligation, entirely independent of the content of their speech, or are you defending their speech and their actions based on your preference for their views to those of the jeweler?
And keep in mind, these customers did more than just ASK to be let out of their contractual obligation. When they asked initially, the jeweler declined to give them a refund of their deposit. It was only after they drummed up public support that they came to a "mutual" agreement to rescind the contract.
So let's look again at my example of the KKK biker couple who were sent an African-American photographer. Would you support his right to ask for a refund of his deposit in that scenario? Would you do so with the same vehemence with which you are supporting this couple's rights?
And let's add one last wrinkle. Suppose the photographer initially told the KKK customer that he would not give a refund. The KKK customer then held a rally of bikers in the same community, and told everybody at the rally about how violated he felt to learn that the owner of the photography studio didn't share his racist beliefs. No direct threats of violence were issued in any way; he did not call on any of the bikers to do any damage to the studio. If the photographer than agreed to give him a refund, would you still argue that this was a "mutual" agreement to reach a new deal?
It calls for a fairy tale, say Goldilocks and the Tolerant Jeweler.
Moustache twirlers' backlash tactics succeed with panache.
Saying that one's views are influenced by having a gay child is no different than saying that one's views are influenced by having a straight child or no children. We are not dealing with a question of logic or math where there is a right answer. It is a question of morality and one's moral code necessarily is influenced by one's experiences.
I think it's funny that this kind of fight involves the ridiculously predatory arena of wedding jewelry.
Hey..welcome to it..all in ;)
But I'm noticing many of the examples given don't address chronology..that the sign wasn't up at the time. So the racist restaurant example only works if he sees the sign after the order is being prepared.
Or another one might be a couple that contracts for their "symbol of love" downtown and later sees an anti-Walker sign in the window that they can't reconcile.
I've paid tuition and taken your class but not yet taken the final exam. I find your views on gay marriage abhorrent. Will the school refund my tuition?
Ann shows once again that Buyers have more rights than Sellers. Like red-lining. The slope was slipped a long time ago. Funny how people are just now waking up to that.
Remember when Chik-Fil-A incurred the wrath of the gay community?
How'd that work out for gays?
Yeah, good times. That was the year that CFA moved into the top 10 of all restaurants and surpassed KFC which has 2-3 times the restaurants and is open 7 days, CFA closes Sundays.
I said at the time, though it was not original to me, that if CFA's PR firm had not staged this, they should have.
Now I find that this is a new marketing tactic. Offend some group of precious snowflakes, get lots of publicity and BIG BUCKS!
Anyone here ever heard of Protein World? Me neither until they ran an ad for bikini ready bodies and pissed off all the right people. They sold a million dollars in 4 days.
Now it seems like the whole campaign to annoy the SJWs was on purpose.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/27/making-the-trolls-pay-how-one-uk-company-made-1-million-in-four-days-from-furious-social-justice-warriors/
Good for them!
John Henry
We often pay for services and then complain about what we got.
Yeah, but most of us don't have a lynch mob at their back when they do.
Saying that one's views are influenced by having a gay child is no different than saying that one's views are influenced by having a straight child or no children. We are dealing with a question of morality not mathematics. One's views necessarily are influenced by experiences. Pointing that out is hardly a persuasive argument.
(is this jeweler organized as a corporation? I guess corporations CAN have political or religious views after all!)
Yes, they can.
And customers are free to take those views into account when deciding whether to patronize businesses, and even when deciding whether to ask for a refund. That's all part of the free market.
I know: you can argue that there wasn't freedom for the jeweler because he received "threats." But without more specificity, I have no idea what anyone was threatening to do, who was making the threats, or if they should really be called threats. And we also shouldn't ignore that this story was told by two writers who are both obviously biased against the customers.
This topic of gay marriage is what caused many people to leave this blog. As you can all see, this is an emotional issue for her. Annie cloaks it in her ham n' egger legalese, but everything she writes is driven by emotion, not the law. She uses the law as a smokescreen, not what it is supposed to be, a conduit to righteous justice.
"What's horrible?"
The constant ubiquitous shove-it-down-their-throats Prog bullying, aided and abetted by the sophistry of people who should know better.
The tainting of all interactions in civil society (and no, it's not like a "party") by the Prog thought police.
The specter of authoritarian Prog repression.
The needless ruining of people's lives, including by social media hate campaigns.
And we also shouldn't ignore that this story was told by two writers who are both obviously biased against the customers.
Not if you follow the links.
Althouse said:
Customers can decide where to shop on any basis they like! Obviously.
You wrote earlier that customers return merchandise all of the time and so what's the big deal?
Of course the difference here is that this involved custom work done under contract. Merchandise can be returned because it usually can be resold without loss to the business owner. Not so in this case. So let's not toss in irrelevant counter-examples (no pun intended.)
But the larger point is that in such contracts, we don't --- or shouldn't -- make a distinction between the two parties. They are negotiating an exchange: goods for services; money for a product. They meet in this contract as equals and they sign the contract for they assume will be their mutual benefit.
However, you seem to be advocating an asymmetric set of rights that favors the party that offers cash versus the party that offers a set of rings. Why you think that cash provides this extra set of privileges is beyond me.
Apparently you want to argue that one party (the one you call the customer) has a right to discriminate based on the opinions of the other party and intimidate that second party into voiding the contract, I don't see how you can not allow the second party to exercise the same "rights" against the first party.
To be specific: If the jeweler had discovered after doing work on the rings that they were to be used for a gay wedding or that his customers had exercised their free speech rights to state opinions that the jeweler opposed, I don't see why you cannot apply your principle that the jeweler should be able to refuse service or intimidate the couple such that they no longer wish to enforce the contract.
My own opinion is that people have the freedom to enter into voluntary contracts. So that the customer should have the right not to buy rings from someone who supports gay marriage, but then that would also allow the jeweler not to sell to customers who support gay marriage.
Since you apparently disagree, perhaps you can explain why you privilege cash over services in these kinds of contracts.
PatHMV said...
Good hypothetical, but you don't have to wonder. You can read how she changed the facts when asked the hypothetical of the gay ring maker and the anti-gay marriage customer.
Suddenly, in her answer, the ring maker no longer wants to make the rings and is happy to be rid of the business. Which didn't happen in this case.
And she acknowledges who is out to make life turn out not so well.
You have your answer.
So someone expressing a belief that marriage should be only between members of the opposite sex is "a message of disrespect". What message do those who want to change marriage send to those who disagree? Trying to force this issue into a respect/disrespect framework is the work of a propagandist, not a lawyer.
Not to pile on, Ann, but your casual dismissal of "going on Facebook and bitching about it" is completely disingenuous.
Or are you unaware of the fact that people have been run out of business based on social media campaigns by intolerant gays?
But the asshole customers
Interesting choice of words when referring to the religious customers in the hypothetical.
Let's face it. We are basically pitting one group's rights versus another and choosing to validate one over the other.
"I don't know why you'd say something that is clearly beyond you knowledge — "it had nothing to do with those particular customers." You undermine your credibility speaking like that. Is that just sloppiness or are you unable to see the discrepancy?"
I read the story, professor. You're just getting too defensive. Have a nice day.
he agreed to give the money back because he was being attacked and threatened by gay fascists and bullies. That's hardly free will.
those who demand tolerance should first practice it.
Is specificity really necessary or even desirable in a threat? In horror, for instance, Stephen King reminds us that the unseen BEM (bug eyed monster) has more power than the monster seen. No matter how big, how many claws and teeth, once the boogeyman comes out of the closet, your terror is diluted by "Gee, I thought he'd be taller/slimier/bug-eyed-er."
So, let's say you want to help yourself to a piece of Althouse. Get her to give you a blowjob, an unearned grade, an allium, an artistic photo of an allium, Zeus, political viewpoint support (i.e. blog and comment according to your wishes), whatever piece of her life and work looks better in your possession than in hers.
To what extent and in what ways is specificity desirable? Do you offer to burn down her house, cut off her nipples, ensure that the good liberals of Madison will shun her, set wild dogs on her gay son, egg her car, initiate a cradle-forward investigation of her life to find any actual or possible defalcation to upbraid her with? Do you need to demonstrate that you know where her house is, where the scandal may lie, or where her nipples are?
Or is it more effective to simply say, "Nice tits you have there; be a shame if something happened to them. Oh look, a squirrel. I think Mort Mobsterson is an A student this semester, don't you?"
Maybe this needs to be reinforced somehow, because Althouse is skeptical? I wonder if a look from such a man would convince her without providing justiciable (is that the right word?) evidence or proof, or if somehow reinforcement of the threat could be provided without leaving anything that could be transmitted to the authorities. Maybe showing her a picture of the man holding a severed head a la ISIS? All in a he-said-she-said manner.
...........
A dead white male once treated this, though he probably had a freer mind than the good professor:
Stephen Crane
1871-1900
"'Think as I Think,'
said a Man"
"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."
And after I had thought of it,
I said: "I will, then, be a toad."
This is complete straw, every bit of it. You're usually smarter than this Althouse. But it does give me an idea. How about someone opening a bakery, where they post a sign which reads:
"We bake wedding cakes for everybody, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. We do, however, vehemently oppose same-sex marriage as an abomination. As such, we'd love to bake that cake for you. Heh, heh, heh."
Completely legal near as I can tell.
They bought a product. They didn't keep it. People return products and get their money back all the time. Most shopkeepers are pretty accommodating about returns.
These were "custom" made rings. One of items that were designed for these specific customers.
It isn't like they were returning a generic product like an Ipad or blender.
Custom made.
PackerBronco
So when I go into a jewelry store and see shelves and shelves of rings I am to assume that none of them will be sold?
(if you are a Bronco fan you are not a true Packer fan.)
'Scuse me, Mrs. A, but your agenda is showing.
I have posted this before, because in the gay-rights debate, it seems to be so often useful...
It is from Justice Scalia's dissent in the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.
One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
Were these lipstick lesbians or polo shirt-baggy pants types, with men's haircuts?
All joking aside there is this from the Bible:
Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil...Isaiah 5:20.
I understand that as soon as I quote the Bible eyes will roll but that is the point of the above quote and our modern times.
I know: you can argue that there wasn't freedom for the jeweler because he received "threats." But without more specificity, I have no idea what anyone was threatening to do, who was making the threats, or if they should really be called threats
Too bad there is no history of behavior by the gay mafia in the past that we can use to make any assumptions about the behavior involved in the current case.
"You'd feel bad about needing to accept a job offer that said you would be tolerated as an employee."
So, if I'd bothered reading all of Althouse's original post, I would have realized my earlier comment regarding 'tolerance' was superfluous – she has jettisoned the whole 'tolerance' thing, at least in this arena. It's all about the feels. Can't have the wrong people feeling bad. (The other people? Fuck 'em.)
"This topic of gay marriage is what caused many people to leave this blog."
Ironically, it seems to have caused at least one of those stooges to return.
So, if a baker doesn't support gay marriage, they have to make a cake regardless. And the gay couples can demand refunds and get a mob at their back if the baker who doesn't support them but doesn't kiss their ass sufficiently can still be penalized?
Gays are less than 5% of the population. When people turn on them over this, I hope they realize where they went wrong. Because folks like me won't suggest calling off the dogs here.
This case provides some insight into my proposed hypothetical: A service provider says to a gay couple, "I do not believe in gay marriage, however, I will be happy to provide services for your event." What will happen to him?
Miss Ann, very disappointed you don't see the see the tactics used here by an offended class. The very essence of free speech is the right to offend, and to be offended. These women were offended and instead of using speech, they sought to enlist the SJW crowd to "shout him down" and intimidate the jeweler into refunding their money. This is what MayBee was talking about.
I'm a gay married man and am thankful that I and my husband have legal rights now in NY, but I do not endorse or approve of these bullying tactics. It has ceased being about tolerance. It is now forced embrace. That's totally antithetical to what you describe as free speech and free thought. You simply cannot enter the public sphere and advocate your own thoughts any longer unless those thoughts are down the line PC. Else you will be set upon by a bunch of folks whose only occupation is hunting down offense wherever they look.
"This topic of gay marriage is what caused many people to leave this blog."
Ironically, it seems to have caused at least one of those stooges to return.
Meade - Are all those who disagree with you "stooges", or just those who disagree with you on homosexual marriage?
Lydia: I keep reading about how the couple felt the rings had been "tainted" because of this and so they no longer wanted them. But in this video interview (at the 2:50 point), they said they were willing to keep the rings if the jeweler apologized and removed the sign. But the heretic refused to recant, so...
Surely you're misinterpreting these remarks. We can assume from all precedent in these matters that these guileless souls, understandably distressed by a merchant's tactless expression of his unsavory views, merely wish to freely disassociate themselves from having to support his business, while respecting absolutely this merchant's equal right to this same freedom of speech, conscience, and association.
Blogger steve uhr said...
So when I go into a jewelry store and see shelves and shelves of rings I am to assume that none of them will be sold?
Some might be sold but only after additional customization is required which could be something as mundane as resizing and something as detailed as removing the etching "Love Always Janet". The point is that it would be up to discretion of the jeweler as to whether the item can be returned.
And some items can never be returned, such as the hours that spent in creating the custom ring.
That's why I objected to Ann trying to equate returning a piece of merchandise which can be easily restocked with returning a custom product and/or service.
Die-hard Packer fan BTW. The "bronco" part my moniker does not indicate loyalty. In fact after the Vikings, Cowboys, and Patriots I would say the Broncos are #4 on my most loathed list of NFL teams.
Gays are less than 5% of the population
The Bolsheviks were an even tinier fraction of the Russian population. But they - like the social-justice warriors using gays for their own ends - were sufficiently ruthless to seize and hold power despite this.
"The very essence of free speech is the right to offend, and to be offended. These women were offended and instead of using speech, they sought to enlist the SJW crowd to "shout him down" and intimidate the jeweler into refunding their money."
Instead of using speech? That was speech!
Part of hearing stuff that offends you is expressing your offense. It's the marketplace of ideas.
You say "intimidate," but arguing and negotiating isn't intimidation. Telling the true story isn't intimidation. Getting other people to agree with you and support you isn't intimidation.
By the way, you are offended by what they said and you are expressing your offense. Are you intimidating them?
Part of free speech is persuading others to see things your way and to act on that opinion. As long as you're not inciting illegal attacks, it is part of political and moral debate.
Everyone can choose how nice or aggressive they want to be in their speech. The form is part of the expression. As Justice Harlan once wrote:
"[M]uch linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, '[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures -- and that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.'"
Althouse - If believing in traditional marriage makes someone "anti-gay", would not believing in homosexual marriage make one anti-heterosexual?
"These were "custom" made rings. One of items that were designed for these specific customers."
Exactly. If a couple of intolerant assholes wanted to return a vacuum cleaner because they found out the store was "conservative", so what? It wouldn't even be a story.
People can refuse to buy from a store for any reason. Maybe they don't like Jews or conservatives or the color of their skin, its their right, its their money.
Demanding a refund for a custom made ring is quite different.
"but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation"
And I appreciate the irony: I've got these comments under moderation.
sign in a store is not a thought. You've got to make the speech/thought distinction.
Ann is apparently ok with punishing speech crimes. Have whatever thoughts you like. But don't you dare express the wrong ones. Not even extreme ones but mere expressions of mainstream Christian, Jewish and Muslim orthodoxy is subject to retribution by Robespierre's mobs.
"So, if a baker doesn't support gay marriage, they have to make a cake regardless."
Yes, this always seemed absurd to me. Its not like a cake is an essential item to live. And there are bakers everywhere.
The whole thing was fascist.
Althouse wrote:
"You say "intimidate," but arguing and negotiating isn't intimidation. Telling the true story isn't intimidation. Getting other people to agree with you and support you isn't intimidation."
Sadly though, arguing, negotiating and telling the true story can result in "triggers" which we are quickly moving towards outlawing.
So while I agree with your point, the discussion is not taking place in a vacuum outside larger cultural forces designed to inflict harm on people who don't embrace gay marriage.
I suspect that the jeweler is not taking such a benign view of what happened to himself and his business.
You might do well to show his concerns a bit more respect even as you disagree with him.
"The jeweler displayed a message of disrespect to them and they objected."
Nope, you are reaching to call this "disrespect" directed at them.
And your position is especially ironic, considering the Gay Nazis on social media were declaring shop owners should be forced to do exactly what he did - put up a sign explaining they don't support gay marriage.
Gay Nazis intended such signs to be the same as being forced to wear little pink triangles - let the public see what "hateful bigots" these shop owners were so they would lose business from hetero supporters of same-sex marriage.
So the guy does just that, and you whine about "disrespect"
And yes, everyone here sees you have let your child's homosexuality bias your opinion on these kind of topics.
No one has explainec why there was anything wrong with asking to be let out a a deal to buy a custom-made ring! People keep saying it was custom-made. Noted! But they had every right to ASK not to have to accept it. The jeweler had a choice whether or not to accommodate them. These were the rings symbolizing their love that they were going to wear on their hands all their lives. They didn't want bad feeling about these items. The jeweler could have decided to be nice about that. No one has said one thing that contradicts this.
Now that this has been settled, let's get on to the next step: demonizing merchants who refuse to say whether they support "marriage equality."
@Althouse:
Obvious question as yet unasked:
Let us posit that the jeweler was initially unaware that the rings were for a gay wedding. He subsequently finds out, tells the women he will no longer make the rings, and refunds their money.
What is your position?
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
No one has explainec why there was anything wrong with asking to be let out a a deal to buy a custom-made ring! People keep saying it was custom-made. Noted! But they had every right to ASK not to have to accept it ... No one has said one thing that contradicts this.
The concern is that the jeweler did not feel free that he could refuse such a request and based on recent events, it's a reasonable fear on his part.
I think if you would acknowledge that rather than 'tut-tuting' his concerns, you would get far less push back on this thread.
But they had every right to ASK not to have to accept it.
They did. He refused.
The jeweler had a choice whether or not to accommodate them
He did. He refused.
Then the lesbians took it to the gay mafia. We have a history of the behavior of the gay mafia. The threat to destroy his livelyhood was extremely thinly veiled at the least, and apparently everyone else in the world except you acknowledges this.
"But they had every right to ASK not to have to accept it."
Personally, I think it takes a lot of cheek to request returning a custom item. But that's me.
When you speak, you might cause others not to like you and to want to avoid your business. That's part of free speech!
And that's the part that conservatives want the protection of the Big Government from, if it's for a conservative cause.
175 comments already, and with moderation! You sure know how to bait 'em, Prof!
Apparently she feels that since no one actually cut off the jeweler's nipples, that he had no kick coming. Evidently he was supposed to wait for the bad thing to happen. Then of course she would be on his side. Of course.
"No one has explained why there was anything wrong with asking to be let out a a deal to buy a custom-made ring!"
Memories Pizza. D.GOOCH
Ann, what is your position on the cake bakers and photographers who want to refuse to serve a gay marriage?
If your answer isn't "market forces" and "speech and the marketplace" then I call hypocrite.
D.GOOCH
"Let us posit that the jeweler was initially unaware that the rings were for a gay wedding. He subsequently finds out, tells the women he will no longer make the rings, and refunds their money. What is your position?"
I'll assume there is no statutory law that requires him not to discriminate. If there was, I might report him to the appropriate authorities, mostly so he wouldn't hurt other people.
I'll assume there was a valid contract, so he's obligated. He would be liable for breaching the contract, and they probably wouldn't bother to sue him, but if they did the question would be damages. If I were their lawyer, I would advise them not to sue.
They could, if they wanted, try to persuade the jeweler to go ahead and make the ring for them, citing the contract, and he could change his mind.
They could say, okay thanks for telling us. We wouldn't want rings like that anyway and go somewhere else. If it were me, I'd say thanks and get out of there and find something positive and happy to do about the wedding. I wouldn't get mixed up in any of the negative.
But what was the question that I'm supposed to have a position on? Whether there's a breach of contract? What should a person with good judgment do? What's the range of possible reactions that are within the range of acceptability?
While Althouse is right that there's nothing wrong with merely asking to cancel the deal to make the custom rings, it's disingenuous to call this situation that. First, they are asking to break the deal because they cannot tolerate doinbg business with someone having a religious view, which I thought was unlawful under civil rights law. Second, they didn't merely ask... they raised a storm meant to coerce in an environment where businesses have been destroyed and owners subjected to heavy penalties, merely for their religious views.
That is indeed something we can condemn for its mean spirited and hateful nature.
Had the lesbians done this because the shopkeeper had a Quran or was seen at a bar mitzvah, somehow I think that would be seen differently... mainly because certain religions and views are unpopular in academia and the mainstream media.
Also, where was the disrespect in the sign? Did it denigrate homosexuals?
There was nothing disrespectful about the sign. Certainly the two lesbians disagreed with the sentiment, and they are free to have what ever emotional reaction they like to people who espouse that view. They can hate people who hold that view. Fine.
But that doesn't make what the jeweler did disrespectful. He posted a sign in his own shop. That sign expressed a view that didn't "disrespect" anyone, whatever your views are on same-sex marriage. D.GOOCH
The customers had every right to ask for a refund, Althouse, and the merchant had every right to refuse. Which he did. Until he was bullied and threatened. And so he changed his mind.
How did the merchant have a free choice in this matter?
Lost in all the legalese is that this isn't about the contract.
It is about tolerance. The two women who ordered the ring were intolerant.
And they went out of their way to encourage intolerance towards the jeweler by others.
And they did so to someone who was evidently tolerant of them and their differences.
That is despicable. So much for "diversity." D.GOOCH
"They did. He refused... He did. He refused."
So, there is no problem with any of that. Why keep acting like there is?
"Then the lesbians took it to the gay mafia. We have a history of the behavior of the gay mafia. The threat to destroy his livelyhood was extremely thinly veiled at the least, and apparently everyone else in the world except you acknowledges this."
This is what you object to, not the part where they ask to be allowed out of the deal. Let's keep that very straight and keep the conversation compartmentalized.
I agree that this is an issue, but my position on this issue is that it's speech, it's debate, and they criticized a business that was disrespecting them, as they saw it. We criticize businesses all the time. It's not like that pizza restaurant thing where someone asked the owner if they'd cater a gay wedding. The jeweler POSTED A SIGN. He CHOSE to engage in public speech and he got a RESPONSE in public speech. Now, I'm seeing articles sympathizing with him because his mere THOUGHTS were used against him. I'm not buying that. This was public debate about an important issue in a public space.
What's the range of possible reactions that are within the range of acceptability?
Apparently, whatever the gay person wants.
I also haven't forgotten Althouse's little Gay Nazi tactics. Some time ago I commented that I am bored with yet another thread about gay issues.
I was rewarded with a front page attack by her implying I was some kind of bigot.
So please don't lecture us about "tolerance" now Ann.
BTW, you should have apologized for all that. Shows a real lack of class that you couldn't.
This was public debate about an important issue in a public space.
So if someone used Facebook, blogger or twitter to destroy a business, or get someone fired because they supported gay marriage...you'd be fine with that?
If there are advantages in being married they should belong to everyone. But if they did belong to everyone then they would belong to no one. This is a good reason to abolish the legal institution of marriage. It's not all that old anyway and serves mainly the interests of the state. As with so many other areas of social friction, get the state out and remove the friction. People are so keen to gain perceived advantage that they hardly ever argue for removing the advantage, as regards the state, entirely and making such matters personal and private.
This fight has been pushed right to the edges of thought control. I think as I ever did - that what passes between me and my wife is not comparable to anything that exists between a couple of homos - but I make no demands on anyone else's behavior nor intrude on their thoughts. Those who insist that this position is not reasonable or tolerable are building up a terrific debt of resentment on the part of others who have not before cared at all what they get up to or believe. The outcome may not be all rainbows for them.
I guess I'm just amused at conservatives crying for "Big Government" to protect them from from the predictable responses to their fragile, discriminatory sentiments.
I was rewarded with a front page attack by her implying I was some kind of bigot.
But aren't you being one?
In what way have gays used tactics that can be in any way described as "Nazi" like?
That statement alone shows either how unhinged, hyperbolic or desperate the person making it is.
There have been no arrests, let alone deportations, mass starvation, forced labor or mass killings of people who hate gay rights.
There really does need to be a new theme in how one depicts their own persecution complex. If you can't be accurate, at least be more imaginative. Fantasize about being politically oppressed in original and creative ways, instead of with the predictable "Nazi" rhetoric. Like Mel Gibson did in South Park!
Is it possible that the lesbian couple had second thoughts about the ring itself, independent of the jeweler, and saw this as a way to get their money back?
Justice Scalia's dissent in the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
"Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda…"
I think if you have to qualify what you'd like to criticize with the phrase "so-called", then you're really being disingenuous about what you're actually out to identify as a problem.
The problems I have possess real names, not "so-called" names. I don't "so-call" an issue something so as to make it sound like an actual problem.
Scalia's basically engaging in the act of concocting made-up diagnoses.
This is part of why his opinion was rejected by the court.
"Also, where was the disrespect in the sign? Did it denigrate homosexuals?"
Yes.
"There was nothing disrespectful about the sign. Certainly the two lesbians disagreed with the sentiment, and they are free to have what ever emotional reaction they like to people who espouse that view. They can hate people who hold that view. Fine."
They didn't want their wedding rings to be a reminder of that negative experience. No one wants bad emotion tied up with the symbolism of their rings.
"But that doesn't make what the jeweler did disrespectful. He posted a sign in his own shop. That sign expressed a view that didn't "disrespect" anyone, whatever your views are on same-sex marriage."
He took their money, knowing he disapproved of what they were doing and he subsequently displayed a sign expressing his disapproval.
You can take a lawyer away from ambulance-chasing but you'll never take ambulance-chasing out of a lawyer.
"I also haven't forgotten Althouse's little Gay Nazi tactics. Some time ago I commented that I am bored with yet another thread about gay issues. I was rewarded with a front page attack by her implying I was some kind of bigot. So please don't lecture us about "tolerance" now Ann. BTW, you should have apologized for all that. Shows a real lack of class that you couldn't."
LOL. You're complaining about someone doing the very thing that you yourself are doing in your complaint. What a bullshitter!
I agree that this is an issue, but my position on this issue is that it's speech, it's debate, and they criticized a business that was disrespecting them, as they saw it. We criticize businesses all the time. It's not like that pizza restaurant thing where someone asked the owner if they'd cater a gay wedding. The jeweler POSTED A SIGN. He CHOSE to engage in public speech and he got a RESPONSE in public speech. Now, I'm seeing articles sympathizing with him because his mere THOUGHTS were used against him. I'm not buying that. This was public debate about an important issue in a public space.
He made his business hostage to an ill-fated attempt to engage, and badly lose, in the marketplace of ideas.
I hear all the time business owners talking about the importance of their reputation.
So the problem with a business owner taking a disreputable stance is that they threaten their reputation, and hence their own business.
No one chose to do this but the business owner. If he doesn't like how reputations are defined in America, if he doesn't like what's a popular stance or what's a disreputable stance, then he can shut up, close up shop, or move to a place where reputable opinions aren't freely decided by the culture around him in which he lives!
It's really simple.
"So if someone used Facebook, blogger or twitter to destroy a business, or get someone fired because they supported gay marriage...you'd be fine with that?"
Because they took the money, hiding their disapproval, and shortly after put up A SIGN expressing that disapproval, but wouldn't rescind the deal, leaving the customers with WEDDING RINGS that reminded them of a bad experience.
Not "because they supported gay marriage."
Get the facts straight. Or is this a pure hypo about something that never happened?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा