POLL: Which is the more egregious violation of someone else's civil rights?

[TJ8869]

A while back we had some discussion about whether the actions of the Westboro Baptist members was protected free speech. They disrupted countless funeral ceremonies and also picketed a Mississippi teen's graduation after she lobbied unsuccessfully to have the school allow her to bring a female date to prom.

As I recall, quite a few HROTers argued that, disgusting as their tactics may be, WBC's actions are protected free speech.

With all the recent debate over the RFRA I am curious to see how people feel about the two issues.

 

[joelbc1]

the business of business is to do business. In America an entrepreneur opens the doors to all. It is not necessarily so in Europe. But in the US, that is the way business is done.

Westtport Baptist is a church. A church's role is to monitor spiritual guidance to its members. To me it is pretty obvious that protesting a non-parishioners funeral is a bit of a stretch in fulfilling this mission.


both business and church are showing a very small mindset in the two examples listed. we all do things in life that we would rather it do. Busines included. A church overtly exhibiting their first amendment right seems to have its role misguided.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

While I like your poll, it's hard to answer since your poll question and your subject line question yield different answers.

The disruption of funerals and graduations because of homophobia is more offensive than the refusal of service for the same reason, but the refusal of service is a rights violation while the other is not.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You didn't specify that the disruption of the funeral or graduation was also based on homophobia, but I assumed that was what you meant.

But what if the guy being buried was a mass murderer or a serial pedophile? Would such a protest still be more offensive than refusing to cater a wedding because of bigotry?

Yes, you can flip that the other way, too. Suppose the caterer refused to cater the wedding of a mass murderer or serial pedophile?

Some people will fall back on the "protected class" argument. But that's for lazy thinkers. If we defined pedophiles as a class, would that suddenly make protests against them offensive or wrong?

 

[TJ8869]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
While I like your poll, it's hard to answer since your poll question and your subject line question yield different answers.

The disruption of funerals and graduations because of homophobia is more offensive than the refusal of service for the same reason, but the refusal of service is a rights violation while the other is not.

So it is your belief that having someone cater your wedding is a civil right, but being allowed to graduate or bury a loved one in peace is not?

 

[TJ8869]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
You didn't specify that the disruption of the funeral or graduation was also based on homophobia, but I assumed that was what you meant.

While I have no doubt the WBC protesters are homophobic, I don't necessarily think homophobia is the driving force behind their protests. I think they use it as the explanation because it affords them free speech protection. I think their real motive is making money.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by TJ8869:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
While I like your poll, it's hard to answer since your poll question and your subject line question yield different answers.

The disruption of funerals and graduations because of homophobia is more offensive than the refusal of service for the same reason, but the refusal of service is a rights violation while the other is not.

So it is your belief that having someone cater your wedding is a civil right, but being allowed to graduate or bury a loved one in peace is not?

Both are rights in my view. But the countervailing rights of freedom of assembly and speech in the protest case win over the right to inter in peace. Not a wonderful outcome, but better than the alternative, I think. The business, by contrast, gave up the countervailing right when it offered its services to all comers under the law. The individuals in that business are certainly still entitled to their views - and even to express those views, offensive though they may be - but not to deny service on the basis of those views.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by TJ8869:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
You didn't specify that the disruption of the funeral or graduation was also based on homophobia, but I assumed that was what you meant.

While I have no doubt the WBC protesters are homophobic, I don't necessarily think homophobia is the driving force behind their protests. I think they use it as the explanation because it affords them free speech protection. I think their real motive is making money.

It had never occurred to me to look beyond the obvious on this. But you could be right. Or both could be true.

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by TJ8869:
So it is your belief that having someone cater your wedding is a civil right, but being allowed to graduate or bury a loved one in peace is not?

My judgement would be..."It's business." Business isn't civil rights. Business is rendering a service to those seeking services. If you don't want to provide the service to ALL who seek it, get out of business. If a customer comes to you and wants to do business, do business. You may not want to do business as they desire but in (retail) business the credo is unfortunately, "The customer is always right." If it is an unpleasant experience FOR THE CUSTOMER, they can take their business elsewhere, but then they can talk badly about you all they want.

A church is there to provide moral support for its members.....IN THEIR PLACE OF WORSHIP. To do so outside these confines borders on bad taste. Bad taste in America is not against the law.....sadly it is becoming more and more common place.

 

[pablow]

Well it would be more than ironic if the law determined that refusing to cater pizza to a gay wedding is unlawful discrimination, but delivering the pizzas in boxes marked "God Hates F@gs" is protected speech. In fact, according to many, that is the law.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by pablow:
Well it would be more than ironic if the law determined that refusing to cater pizza to a gay wedding is unlawful discrimination, but delivering the pizzas in boxes marked "God Hates F@gs" is protected speech. In fact, according to many, that is the law.

Compromise? You should run for office, this is Soloman type wisdom.

 

[sijoint]

The business owner's rights are being violated!

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by sijoint:

The business owner's rights are being violated!

stjoint...IF you're in business and not a "private club" this is NOT an option in America. You serve any and all who come thru your doors. Unless they are violating the law in some way, you "serve'em and forget'em."

 

[sijoint]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by sijoint:

The business owner's rights are being violated!

stjoint...IF you're in business and not a "private club" this is NOT an option in America. You serve any and all who come thru your doors. Unless they are violating the law in some way, you "serve'em and forget'em."

Really?

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which includeatrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing troublePatrons that may overfill capacity if let inPatrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closedPatrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit inPatrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer's presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

This post was edited on 4/6 4:33 PM by sijoint

You're Mostly Right...

 

[Lone Clone]

Neither is a violation of civil rights, because having a specific place cater your wedding is not a civil right and neither is having a funeral in private.

Or maybe they are.

But they point is which is most offensive, and it isn't even close. Disrupting the funeral is vastly less civil.

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by sijoint:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by sijoint:

The business owner's rights are being violated!

stjoint...IF you're in business and not a "private club" this is NOT an option in America. You serve any and all who come thru your doors. Unless they are violating the law in some way, you "serve'em and forget'em."

Really?

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which includeatrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing troublePatrons that may overfill capacity if let inPatrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closedPatrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit inPatrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer's presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

This post was edited on 4/6 4:33 PM by sijoint

Thank you for agreeing with me, stjoint. You gotta serve'em unless they are breaking the law (or health/fire code rule). You can't refuse service because you don't like'em or what they represent (lawful) what they represent. In Europe, it is strictly up to the owner as to who they serve.
You'd be smart to call the authorities if these "customers" balk after being asked to leave......and explain it to them (the police). The police generally have special social skills in getting folks to leave premises where they are not welcomed. And make sure the incident is "documented".....just in case.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by sijoint:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by sijoint:

The business owner's rights are being violated!

stjoint...IF you're in business and not a "private club" this is NOT an option in America. You serve any and all who come thru your doors. Unless they are violating the law in some way, you "serve'em and forget'em."

Really?

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which includeatrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing troublePatrons that may overfill capacity if let inPatrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closedPatrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit inPatrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer's presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

This post was edited on 4/6 4:33 PM by sijoint

Please show how those have anything to do with refusing to serve gays.

You are really late to the conversation. We libs have already pointed out that there ARE legit reasons for denying service, and have specifically mentioned some of those. But, again, what do those legit reasons have to do with refusing service because of religious prejudice - which is what the backers of these bills were trying to pass into law.