Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Also adding... no idea why you would imagine i think of you as an enemy, i assure you that i don't.

  I look forward to your updated question.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Above, when you finally made some attempt at a responsible reply to the question I posed to you

  Yes, I finally had to take responsibility for your question.

  When I would point this out you'd respond with something akin to retort. You did this over and over again. That is bickering.

  Yes, you were bickering over your own quote. Very weird. No idea why you would do that and then attempt to blame me for that.

  This kind of responsive behavior typically comes from someone carrying a lot of anger, which is why I said you're loaded with anger. Calm down. I'm not an enemy.

  Accurately describing your quote with paraphrasing seems angry to you? Again, weird, but, whatever. Also, telling me to calm down is very odd. You seem to think that I care enough to be angry at you for something, well, anything, really. You've no power to hurt me, bother me, force me to do anything or take my money, so I am incredibly confused as to why you would think I would bother with anger on you.

  Maybe I'm just not a person that let's anonymous people on the internet bother me. Not everyone can be that cool. Soz not soz!
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Our attorney general says that under the under the Washington State Consumer Protection Act it is against the law to discriminate against your customers based on religion, race, creed, and sexual orientation. Since this is the law he's using to crack down on Arlene's Flowers, I'm going to take him at his word.

  Yes, and he refers to "people" and "persons". What if the customer isn't a person? That's what I am asking you. Do you believe that, if the customer is NOT a person, you would still have to service them?
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  What I think is irrelevant.

  While in general I agree with that, I am trying to focus in specifically on your comment that a business wouldn't be able to refuse service to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Not a specific witness, but the organization, the congregation (which is incorporated, usually) itself or the WTBS.

  What I am driving at is what you think the difference is between a "customer" and a "person".

  The State Attorney General said "Our law against discrimination prevents you from discriminating on the basis of race or religion or, since 2006, sexual orientation.

  He's not illuminating that difference at all. I am asking YOU since you brought up the example.
  

  Do you think discrimination based on some one's group identity is morally proper in some cases. If yes, which ones?

  Well, first, the statement I was responding to was about discrimination in general, not specifically group identity discrimination. Obviously you can refuse service to an individual for a variety of reasons, choose who your friends are, etc..

  For group identity, in general, yes. I think refusing service to people like, say, the Westboro baptist people is fine. Not because they are Christian or Baptist, but because I have a "no assholes" policy and by associating with that group, they've let me know they are assholes. And they are assholes.

  Just like people that keep a Confederate battle flag on their car or house or clothes. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about that person, or someone with a Swastika.

  OTOH, we do need to be careful in group identity. For example, I am considered very liberal where I live (SE US) and my friend is considered very conservative where she lives (Somerville, MA). The running joke is that, if we simply lived in different places and did nothing to change our value, our labels would immediately switch.
  
  
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Yes, as a matter of principle and practicality the answer is yes for any private organization; definitely not for any public organization funded by taxpayers money

  Well, fortunately for us, since a private business that is open to the public IS a public accommodation, they get to follow the non-discrimination laws!

  The principle is freedom.

  They are free to not open a business to the public is they want to deny service to gay people, women Catholics, etc.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  All I've seen you use me for is a person to vent on. You're loaded with anger, and you're loaded with yourself. You bicker over nothing.

  Vent on you? No, I'm not angry at you or myself or the world in any way. You really shouldn't make assumptions about people. I am curious as to why you think I'm angry in any way.

  For instance, I work in a field of IT where every detail matters. Millions of dollars of fines, lawsuits, the ability to continue business depends on whether or not I design something correctly for customers. Clarity is, above all, the the thing we have to have when answering questions. If a question isn't clear, we have to figure out how to make it clear.

  It's not bickering to say "the question doesn't make sense, it needs to be made clear", it's the only way discussion on equal footing can continue.

  For instance, if someone were to ask me whether or not I recommended VMware or Hyper-V, the answer is "Either neither and both depending on what you are doing and why you are asking." If someone asks me "should I used on-prem or off-prem cloud", same answer. Actually, first, I want to clarify what they even mean by cloud, what they are doing, why they are doing it and proceed from there.

  Clarity, my friend. Clarity.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Something like it exists. See: Miss Black USA

  OK. You didn't ask me about that so... describe, specifically, the thing you are asking me about, the thing you made up and want me to assume to know how you think it works.

  1. Legal and moral.
  2. What I'm asking about is a 501(c)3 corporation.
  3. In the case of my question, yes, only "white" people could win the pageant.

  Specifically describe the organization you are asking about and it's practices.

  Without changing the question asked, make assumptions you feel necessary in order to answer what's been asked. If you need more clarification please feel free to inquire.
  If your view did not matter to me I'd not ask it.

  As I said, I won't make assumptions about your question. Describe to be the organization you are asking about. I absolutely will ask for clarification if needed and answer fully.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Wow. That's telling!
  Logic 101: A burden of proof rests on whoever makes an assertion to prove that assertion true.
  What this means: This burden does not shift because someone else does not ask you a question.

  It is. I used you to prove it. That should definitely tell you something. I suspect it's not, but it should.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  It's false to claim I thought the question I answered didn't make sense.

  The sole thing I corrected was the misconception that science is a theory.
  

  You wrote "First, science is not a theory. Science is a method". If you thought it made sense, you're very first action wouldn't have been to correct the very premise of the question. Since you did, clearly you felt the question was wrong.

  As I said, burden of proof provided. If you need it made more clear, all you need do is ask. Since you've not after repeated overtures and offers to make it clear, it's obvious you've no interest in it.

  Actually, you know what? I'll take pity on you. You ARE asking, you just can't admit it.
  

  First, as far as I know, nothing called "Miss White America" exists. If it does, provide me a link and I'll look at it and see what it is and then form an opinion since obviously, it's 100% stupid to form an opinion on something that doesn't exist or, if it does, I don't know anything about or, if it is something you are using as an example, you've failed to explain what it is or provide details I could use to form an opinion.

  Second, do you mean find as in legal? Fine as in moral? Again, none of those things can be answered without without knowing more about the thing you are talking about. Is is a business? A private organization with membership dues? Does the name mean that ONLY white people can be involved? Is it limited to people named White? Is it like the Odd Fellows group that also allows women, meaning the name doesn't reflect what their membership policy is?

  Thirds, courts get involved when someone brings a lawsuit or charges or is seeking redress. Which of these things are you asking about? Courts don't just "get involved" on their own. Ask you asking if I think it should be illegal? Should law enforcement and then courts should get involved? That someone should sue them? That the courts should break tradition and get involved?

  You are asking me to make a ton of assumptions about what you mean, what type of organization you are talking about, how they operate, etc. That's why it's a question that I am refusing to answer. You've given me nothing to work with without trying to read your mind. It doesn't make sense, asking someone to assume details.

  So, jump on that, figure out what you are asking and ask it.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  No. It's may way of kindly telling you the burden of proof is yours to prove your assertions are true.

  I've already done that. In fact, you did it. You answered a question that was similarly poorly constructed by pointing out the question was wrong.

  In any event, even without out, you've been told many times all you have to do is ask what is wrong with the question if you want to know. Until you DO ask, there is no burden on me.