Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Glurp
8713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4004

Subscriber

  Reply # 2054995 12-Jul-2018 13:30
Send private message

That takes the cake!

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


7593 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4009


  Reply # 2055099 12-Jul-2018 14:35
One person supports this post
Send private message

Kath reminds me of an boy I knew when I was a kid, son of a local church minister who'd had evangelical BS rammed down his throat from the day he was born.  He had a paper round, decided that he didn't like some of the news, did his own editing - using a pair of scissors to cut the offending sinful articles out - and delivered a note with every paper explaining what he'd done.  Of course he heard the praise from the few people who supported his action for the "good of society", ignored the front page of the newspaper the next day where he featured prominently (made the TV news too) and AFAIK never delivered another newspaper in his life.  He was 14.  Guardians of the Faith.


1316 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1023

Subscriber

  Reply # 2055315 12-Jul-2018 20:27
Send private message

6FIEND:

 

..she would be just as bigoted, but far less likely to be in breach of the law.

 

 

No offence but unless you have a law degree, how about you leave the legal analysis to the people who actually know what they are talking about? There's actually no material difference between your hypothetical, supposedly less illegal reply versus what Kath actually wrote. Both of these evince clear and unambiguous intent to discriminate against someone on a morally irrelevant ground AND a clear refusal to supply services to someone on a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act. Seriously, we aren't a bunch of children here. No judge will actually believe that a competent baker will somehow fail to bake an acceptable cake because she seriously does not believe in gay marriage.

 

Some of the content of this thread is just scary. The number of fools who naively argue in defence of bigots like Kath in the 21st century is just embarrassing. If you have to pick someone to defend, surely between her and the discriminated-against couple, there's one obvious set of candidates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


1084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 2055402 12-Jul-2018 22:13
2 people support this post
Send private message

Scary? Yes, I agree... but to me, scary because of the vehemence of replies such as yours. I wonder whether alternative views such as those held by Kath really are tolerated in our society.

13902 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2526

Trusted

  Reply # 2055482 13-Jul-2018 07:21
3 people support this post
Send private message

mm1352000: Scary? Yes, I agree... but to me, scary because of the vehemence of replies such as yours. I wonder whether alternative views such as those held by Kath really are tolerated in our society.

 

Most here are lay people as far as law is concerned, most are lay people for IT questions, or any topic. Law seems the only area here where a correction of an incorrect view or opinion is not responded to, it is attacked. Informing is preferred to attacks.


7593 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4009


  Reply # 2055498 13-Jul-2018 08:07
Send private message

mm1352000: Scary? Yes, I agree... but to me, scary because of the vehemence of replies such as yours. I wonder whether alternative views such as those held by Kath really are tolerated in our society.

 

Toleration of her repugnant "views"?   Her actions - based on those bigoted views - are the problem.  Bigots will bigot - the "vehemence" of words biffed back at them aren't a problem - so long as they're within the law.  (apparently some weren't - but not here on GZ)

 

This seems to keep cropping up in different examples.  Squawking like stuck pigs about "rights" being infringed by "thought police" - when they're caught doing things.  It's not limited to bigots and fascists, there was a hint of it elsewhere on the news yesterday from the idiot who smeared rat poison on the (ex) environment Minister, appearing to be claiming that she was merely exercising her rights to protest / express her views.


1084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 2055500 13-Jul-2018 08:20
Send private message

Fred99: Toleration of her repugnant "views"?   Her actions - based on those bigoted views - are the problem.

 

...except that in my opinion Kath's actions/response could be considered consistent with both her view and with tolerance. So it either becomes a question of what actions are acceptable or not, or what views are acceptable or not. When I initially read this thread I formed the opinion that both the view and actions were considered unacceptable

 

Fred99: Bigots will bigot - the "vehemence" of words biffed back at them aren't a problem - so long as they're within the law.  (apparently some weren't - but not here on GZ)

 

In theory I agree with you. However, I would still argue that the words used by some of the posters in this thread suggest they themselves are showing a lack of tolerance. In other words: for me it is a question of when does it cross the line and become bigotry.

 

Fred99: This seems to keep cropping up in different examples.  Squawking like stuck pigs about "rights" being infringed by "thought police" - when they're caught doing things.  It's not limited to bigots and fascists, there was a hint of it elsewhere on the news yesterday from the idiot who smeared rat poison on the (ex) environment Minister, appearing to be claiming that she was merely exercising her rights to protest / express her views.

 

 

Yes, I agree that this does keep cropping up... and in my opinion it will continue to do so, because world views are in conflict.


13902 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2526

Trusted

  Reply # 2055506 13-Jul-2018 08:32
Send private message

mm1352000:

 

Fred99: Toleration of her repugnant "views"?   Her actions - based on those bigoted views - are the problem.

 

...except that in my opinion Kath's actions/response could be considered consistent with both her view and with tolerance. So it either becomes a question of what actions are acceptable or not, or what views are acceptable or not. When I initially read this thread I formed the opinion that both the view and actions were considered unacceptable

 

Fred99: Bigots will bigot - the "vehemence" of words biffed back at them aren't a problem - so long as they're within the law.  (apparently some weren't - but not here on GZ)

 

In theory I agree with you. However, I would still argue that the words used by some of the posters in this thread suggest they themselves are showing a lack of tolerance. In other words: for me it is a question of when does it cross the line and become bigotry.

 

Fred99: This seems to keep cropping up in different examples.  Squawking like stuck pigs about "rights" being infringed by "thought police" - when they're caught doing things.  It's not limited to bigots and fascists, there was a hint of it elsewhere on the news yesterday from the idiot who smeared rat poison on the (ex) environment Minister, appearing to be claiming that she was merely exercising her rights to protest / express her views.

 

 

Yes, I agree that this does keep cropping up... and in my opinion it will continue to do so, because world views are in conflict.

 

 

The law clearly states what is discrimination, its not that grey. So its not about tolerance, as a Statute has set that line in the sand. Its discimination or its not, and in this case, it is. Kath's politeness merely dilutes the level of discrimination in some peoples eyes, but in the case of the law, its still 100% discrimination, pure and simple.


7593 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4009


  Reply # 2055567 13-Jul-2018 09:23
Send private message

mm1352000:

 

In theory I agree with you. However, I would still argue that the words used by some of the posters in this thread suggest they themselves are showing a lack of tolerance. In other words: for me it is a question of when does it cross the line and become bigotry.

 

 

That always gets back to the "paradox of tolerance";

 

(Bigotry is intolerance, so it's bigoted to be intolerant of bigots.  That's the paradox.)

 

There are usually moral "bottom lines" where based on concepts of freedom and human rights etc, intolerance of the intolerant is okay.  Where do you draw the line?  When someone's openly and maliciously intolerant of what people are (as opposed to what they "believe") seems good to me - especially so when what they are doesn't limit my freedoms, cost me anything, and benefits me by facilitating a more peaceful, safe, and tolerant society.  

 

Anyway, this is a privately owned moderated forum.  The acid test for intolerant views is usually eventually shown by an "inactive user" tag under the poster's name.

 

mm1352000:

 

Yes, I agree that this does keep cropping up... and in my opinion it will continue to do so, because world views are in conflict.

 

 

And as a result of this conflict (and subsequent division), will society become more or less tolerant? It's not a game or "philosophical debate"  - history doesn't bode well for peace when intolerance festers.


Glurp
8713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4004

Subscriber

  Reply # 2055599 13-Jul-2018 09:53
Send private message

I sometimes feel like these kinds of discussions are like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. People who argue issues like intolerance can always come up with hypothetical cases that prove one or the other. Trying to rigidly encode an intolerance line in law seems to me an exercise in futility. I have come to a point in my life where I prefer to use a completely subjective sniff test. I don't care if it passes any particular legalistic definitions or not. Some things just feel wrong to anyone with common sense. A lot of things are so clear-cut that they can easily be placed on one or the other side of the issue. Hate speech, for example. Calling certain classes of people despicable names. Evil justifications for evil actions. A lot of this is easy to classify: It is wrong and anyone who defends it is wrong. Other things may be more of a grey area, or harder to pin down. Does a business owner have a right to refuse to serve someone on the grounds of personal principle? Not in the American South. Not if the person being refused happens to be black.

 

Do people have a right to shout things at me that I may not want to hear? Sure they do. But not from my front lawn. If they come on my property they have to obey my rules. I have no problem with the banning of that Canadian couple, or any others like them. I think people like this try to use weaknesses in democratic systems to insinuate themselves and spread their poison. I feel no obligation at all to help them do this, regardless of any principles of free speech involved. Their free speech is not being compromised. It is all over the Internet and anyone who wants to listen to it can. They are like vampires. We don't have to invite them in.

 

 

 

   





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 2055721 13-Jul-2018 13:38
Send private message

tdgeek: The law clearly states what is discrimination, its not that grey. So its not about tolerance, as a Statute has set that line in the sand. Its discimination or its not, and in this case, it is.

 

I don't fully agree with this. I mean, generally speaking, our laws are interpreted differently by different people every day. Obviously that's why we have lawyers, judges, legal precedent etc.

 

For the sake of understanding and clarity, and since multiple laws have been previously mentioned in this thread:would you mind clarifying [briefly] which specific law (act) you would refer to, and how you apply your logic to it?

 

tdgeek: Kath's politeness merely dilutes the level of discrimination in some peoples eyes, but in the case of the law, its still 100% discrimination, pure and simple.

 

If you say that it is discrimination not to provide your service to certain people or groups thereof - full stop, that's it - then I can understand your point of view. Don't know if I whole-heartedly agree because of situations like this, but I understand.

 

Kath's "politeness" as you describe it is... well, put it this way: I suspect it is genuine and heart-felt, rather than a smoke-screen. She clearly disagrees with homosexual marriage, and seems to be trying to separate her views on that subject from the way that she treats people - including homosexual people - in general. It's a fine line, but it's a line that we've drawn for marriage celebrants. Why shouldn't that same dispensation be granted to Kath, or anybody else for that matter? What would you do/say if you were in her position?

 

 


1316 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1023

Subscriber

  Reply # 2055760 13-Jul-2018 13:55
2 people support this post
Send private message

mm1352000:

 

For the sake of understanding and clarity, and since multiple laws have been previously mentioned in this thread:would you mind clarifying [briefly] which specific law (act) you would refer to, and how you apply your logic to it?

 

 

Would you like to stop trolling and have read of the legislations already discussed, arguments already made, and actually address them?

 

 

 

 


7593 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4009


  Reply # 2055761 13-Jul-2018 13:59
2 people support this post
Send private message

mm1352000:

 

tdgeek: The law clearly states what is discrimination, its not that grey. So its not about tolerance, as a Statute has set that line in the sand. Its discimination or its not, and in this case, it is.

 

I don't fully agree with this. I mean, generally speaking, our laws are interpreted differently by different people every day.

 

 

I suggest you go back up the thread and read relevant posts - where you'll see extracts from the Human Rights Act and discussion,

 

There's also the text of "Kath's" email where she refused to offer goods and services very specifically because she was discriminating against them on prohibited grounds, as well as comments from at least one lawyer on this forum, and links to comments from lawyers in the media making it very clear.  It's simple. She broke the law - so stop trolling.

 

You'll also see discussion about whether being "politely" bigoted or your actions being "heart felt" excuses being bigoted.  The answer is no.

 

You're trolling by trying to revisit that discussion.

 

 

 

Edit - boom/snap. 


1084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 2055775 13-Jul-2018 14:20
Send private message

Fred99: That always gets back to the "paradox of tolerance";

 

Yes, I agree [again! :) ].

 

Fred99: Where do you draw the line?

 

Not sure if this question is rhetorical or not, given the context. Assuming it's not, my answer would be: when it becomes direct abuse of people because of a view they hold or - more clearly - who they are as a person.

 

To use Kath's situation as an example, I would differentiate between her refusing to serve (ie. sell them a pie etc.) any homosexual person because they are homosexual (=> discrimination), and what she has said/done in this particular scenario. For me, the marriage factor makes it different. I don't know that I'd be able to logically explain/justify why, but it does.

 

Fred99: When someone's openly and maliciously intolerant of what people are (as opposed to what they "believe") seems good to me - especially so when what they are doesn't limit my freedoms, cost me anything, and benefits me by facilitating a more peaceful, safe, and tolerant society. 

 

If you believe Kath's action - refusing to provide her services for homosexual marriages - is maliciously intolerant then I ask you the same question as I ask tdgeek: what would you do/say if you were her? I ask because, given a surface-level interpretation of what you've said, it would seem untenable for her to operate certain businesses in this country and continue to hold her belief/view. One or the other must give, or she must leave our country. Do you agree, and do you think that is reasonable?

 

Fred99: And as a result of this conflict (and subsequent division), will society become more or less tolerant? It's not a game or "philosophical debate"  - history doesn't bode well for peace when intolerance festers.

 

I agree - it's absolutely not a game. It helps a lot when the law is clear and fair with respect to tolerance and conflict of rights/freedoms. If Kath's actions are illegal then personally I'm not convinced we have the law in our country quite right yet.


1084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 2055789 13-Jul-2018 14:34
Send private message

dejadeadnz: Would you like to stop trolling and have read of the legislations already discussed, arguments already made, and actually address them?

 

I'm not intentionally trolling. tdgeek's earlier comments with specific reference to legislation left me uncertain where he stands. On the one hand he acknowledged the human rights act section 44; on the other he acknowledged the lay-understanding that shops are within their rights to refuse to serve/sell.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.