|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 01/20/2012 : 14:53:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If religious bullies are pushing the florist to not serve an atheist on the basis of her atheism, then yes, the florist is refusing to serve an atheist because of her atheism. The reason would boil down to, "my customers wouldn't approve of me serving atheists, so I won't." |
If a pattern of not serving atheists exists, then I agree that it is discriminatory. But if the reason boils down to "my customers wouldn't approve of me serving this particular atheist, so I won't," I'm not certain it qualifies as discrimination. But as you say, that's for the proper officials to decide.
| In other words, there seems to be a big difference in terms of how the hostility is playing out, here. |
Oh, it is different. For one, Jessica isn't a big name celebrity with several products sold under her name that can be easily boycotted. So instead people seem to be lashing out at anything remotely associated with her in an attempt to ostracize her from their community. It sucks and they're assholes. I'm just not convinced the florists who refused business have done anything illegal.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 14:56:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
(The gelato guy near Skepticon this year didn't seem to get it at first, either.) |
The difference there was he posted a sign saying an entire group was unwelcome in his establishment due to the actions of a single individual. Had the owner put up a sign saying "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment," he may have been on firmer legal footing.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 15:35:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
If a pattern of not serving atheists exists, then I agree that it is discriminatory. But if the reason boils down to "my customers wouldn't approve of me serving this particular atheist, so I won't," I'm not certain it qualifies as discrimination. But as you say, that's for the proper officials to decide. |
As I read them, the laws don't differentiate between individual and institutional discrimination. "I won't serve you in particular because you are an atheist, even though I serve other atheists" and "I won't serve atheists" are both illegal.
There are, of course, plenty of discrimination cases in which it turned out that the plaintiff was denied service, housing or a job because he was a huge jerk, instead of because (he claimed) he was of a different race, religion or sex than the defendant. In such cases, no pattern will be found because none exists.
But the anti-discrimination laws protect individuals without the need for a pattern to be found.
Perhaps you're thinking of the big class-action discrimination suits against, say, Walmart, in which the plaintiffs' case asserts nothing more than a pattern of discrimination (which they then have to prove) without direct evidence against any individual. The "women get paid 80% less than men in the same positions" sort of cases.| Oh, it is different. For one, Jessica isn't a big name celebrity with several products sold under her name that can be easily boycotted. So instead people seem to be lashing out at anything remotely associated with her in an attempt to ostracize her from their community. It sucks and they're assholes. I'm just not convinced the florists who refused business have done anything illegal. |
If the florists knew the assholes were upset because of Ahlquist's atheism, then I think it's a pretty clear case of illegal discrimination.| The difference there was he posted a sign saying an entire group was unwelcome in his establishment due to the actions of a single individual. Had the owner put up a sign saying "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment," he may have been on firmer legal footing. |
He would have been just fine if he'd put up a sign saying, "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment because his voice grates on me." How one's voice affects others is not a protected class under the law. However, "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment because he's an atheist" is just as illegal as a sign reading "no atheists allowed." The actual sign made clear the religious discrimination. Your example sign is ambiguous, in that it reveals no motive, though one could be inferred from the geographical and chronological context, and left to the courts to investigate and decide. Which is what I'm doing with the florists in Rhode Island.
By the way, "Sam Singleton not welcome in this establishment because his voice grates on me" would be illegal if there were independent evidence that the excuse on the sign were a sham. Say an employee overheard a telephone call in which gelato guy tells someone that he's going to try to skirt around the Civil Rights Act by making up a story about Singleton's voice, when in reality he's denying service because of Singleton's blasphemy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 15:46:50 [Permalink]
|
Well, then you may be right, Dave. I admit my understanding of such laws is minimal at best. I'll be curious to see how this case develops.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 17:05:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
There are, of course, plenty of discrimination cases in which it turned out that the plaintiff was denied service, housing or a job because he was a huge jerk, instead of because (he claimed) he was of a different race, religion or sex than the defendant. In such cases, no pattern will be found because none exists. |
I'm still curious where that legal line is, exactly. If I'm an independent business owner and Fred Phelps walks in, do I have to serve him if even though I find his peculiar understanding of the bible leads him to be a huge jerk? Is that religious discrimination or just refusing to serve an asshole?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 17:23:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I'm still curious where that legal line is, exactly. If I'm an independent business owner and Fred Phelps walks in, do I have to serve him if even though I find his peculiar understanding of the bible leads him to be a huge jerk? Is that religious discrimination or just refusing to serve an asshole? |
Do you really think that his understanding of the Bible causes him to be an asshole? Or do you think that he's an asshole who tries to justify his assholishness with the Bible?
If the latter, then there's no case. It's not his religion you're discriminating against, it's his personality (and "bigoted dickhead" isn't a protected class). Phelps might try to sue you anyway, and claim that you think the former, but he's no mind-reader and so explaining the latter to a judge would, I think, be a positive defense.
If you screwed up, and said something like, "get out of my store, you Bible-thumping shit-head," then he'd probably have a case against you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 17:34:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If you screwed up, and said something like, "get out of my store, you Bible-thumping shit-head," then he'd probably have a case against you.
|
And I'm thinking the the situation with Jessica will be much the same. Unless the florists screw up and say something directly about refusing to serve Jessica because of her atheism, there might not be much legal recourse. I do hope I'm wrong, of course.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 20:03:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Originally posted by the_ignored
Uh what? Zero religious references? Isn't the fact that they're all getting bent out of shape because she pointed out that the xian god in that banner was unconstitutional evidence enough?
As for the florists, come on. What other motive could there be?
|
Zero religious reference from the florists. And it could be simply economics. Indeed it is sufficient and most likely, given that one of them noted the possible negative press. In a free society, why must these business people be conscripted to work on behalf of an atheist organization if they choose not to be?
|
I'm thinking of that one florist who had said that they "would not deliver to that person".
For all I know, the others were just cowards. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 20:24:00 [Permalink]
|
For all we know they were all just mammals trying to make their way through life, with no personal regard towards Jessica or the school prayer one way or another. I can easily imagine that a person would refuse (and let me be clear the refusal was:) to deliver by simply assuming that there are international news agencies and paparazzi monitoring that address, and the personal nuisance (and by extension nuisance to me doing my business) is not worth the income. My restaurant turns down deliveries often due to the nuisance of the location.
Is it possible that there was motivation because of religious bias? Sure. Was it certainly so? Not at all. Like the tweeters of the OP we tend to demonize people we perceive as opponents (with great ease and with very little charity). We can all easily see the false dichotomy in GWB's statement: "If you're not with us, you're against us." But no matter we are religious or not, our biases make it difficult for us to see when we are acting in the same general fashion.
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/20/2012 20:28:28 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 21:02:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Is it possible that there was motivation because of religious bias? Sure. Was it certainly so? Not at all. Like the tweeters of the OP we tend to demonize people we perceive as opponents (with great ease and with very little charity). We can all easily see the false dichotomy in GWB's statement: "If you're not with us, you're against us." But no matter we are religious or not, our biases make it difficult for us to see when we are acting in the same general fashion. |
I agree.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 21:51:16 [Permalink]
|
| What if an "accommodationist" atheist like Massimo Pigliucci refused to serve hardcore atheist Jerry Coyne, assuming Pigliucci ran a diner, and discriminated on the basis of Coynes' "anti-accommodationist" beliefs? (And further assuming Coyne had shaved and showered, actually had some cash that day, and was really hungry?) |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 22:01:20 [Permalink]
|
| Well, some good is coming out of this: The Friendly Atheist has set up a scholarship fund for Jessica. Get a load of how much has been raised for her college fees (she apparently plans to go to an out-of-state college) already, and there's still weeks left! |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2012 : 23:02:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Well, some good is coming out of this: The Friendly Atheist has set up a scholarship fund for Jessica. Get a load of how much has been raised for her college fees (she apparently plans to go to an out-of-state college) already, and there's still weeks left!
|
Great numbers! Even if all the secular community could accomplish would be to get Jessica the Hell out of Rhode Island, that would be tremendous. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2012 : 03:33:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Well, some good is coming out of this: The Friendly Atheist has set up a scholarship fund for Jessica. Get a load of how much has been raised for her college fees (she apparently plans to go to an out-of-state college) already, and there's still weeks left!
|
I decided to chip in.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2012 : 06:18:00 [Permalink]
|
Well, one of the florists refused ostensibly because of the extra hassles involved:Raymond Santilli, owner of Flowers by Santilli... says the [Freedom From Religion] foundation told him the delivery person might need police protection and to show identification to gain access to the home. However:Santilli said he had his own personal feelings about the issue, and because it's his shop, he can choose to deliver or not deliver to whomever he wants. No, he's quite wrong about that, as detailed earlier in this thread. So is Marina Plowman of Twins Florist:"I'm independent owner and I can choose whoever I want, whenever I want," said Plowman. But Plowman also said,...part of the reason why she rejected the order was because of the warning [about police protection and showing ID] that came with it. But the FFRF's complaint is only against Plowman, who allegedly replied to the delivery request with a terse "I will not deliver to this person."
Floral Express, a third florist, claimed that they would be closed on the requested delivery date, and indeed the door was locked.
I still think it's Greenwood Flower & Garden that should have been cited, since Daryal Romano initially agreed to deliver, and only later pulled out, saying local bullies his customers would quit buying from him.
They're bullying the school committee members, too:“If you don’t defend the banner, you will not be reelected,” French shouted. “Any of you!” Lisa French also thinks that......since “separation of church and state” does not explicitly, word for word, appear in the constitution, there is no reason why the government can’t sponsor prayer and religion. Quite ignorant. That article also says that many of the people at that Thursday meeting were singing hymns, which is just one of the reasons why I have high confidence that the threats the florists have been getting have had a religious basis, and not just people hating on Ahlquist for being the center of attention.
It's possible that Romano (for example) didn't know that his customers' threats to stop doing business with him were religious in nature, I just don't think it's reasonable to treat that possibility as if it were equally probable. Not when the controversy and the religious bile have been front-page news in the heavily-Catholic area for as long as they have. The florist who finally made the delivery, Glimpse of Gaia florist Sean Condon, said they got a call after agreeing to deliver that they should be "ashamed" for doing so. Ashamed? Is there a secular reason for shame in this situation?
By the way, at least one student has been disciplined for comments made online about Ahlquist. And a student walk-out in support of the prayer mural was "thwarted" a week ago Friday. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How fundies react when they don't get their way
