Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]Post by Tak ToPost by Peter T. DanielsPost by CherylPost by Tony CooperI have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
too.)
When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
doesn't come across as a bigot?
I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
the job. Sometimes I do know.
I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
aggressively.
So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
subject again.
What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
The baker has the right to reject cake designs,
but not customers based on their sexual orientation.
Let me clarify. The baker cannot reject a customer and
claim that he is just rejecting the design. For example,
he cannot reject a design from X while accepting a very
similar design from Y. In an actual case the prosecutor
would try to prove that the baker's pattern of acceptance
and rejection constitutes a discriminatory behavior
against a protected group; and the defendant will try to
prove otherwise. It is not cut and dry.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]That varies between legal jurisdictions.
Naturally.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]The analogy I make is that of a maker of cakes with menaingful designs
on them to someone working in a place printing books, newpapers, etc.
In my case, I assume "baker" to be the owner of the business.
So when he says no to a cake design, he is saying no to the
*customer*. Whereas in your case, "someone working in a place
printing books" seems to be an employee of the print shop.
So when he says no, he is saying no to his *employer*. There
is a bit of difference between the two situations.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]In the latter case I don't accept that a worker has the right to refuse
to print something if he/she disagrees with the content.
The worker can refuse the assignment but can also be fired.
Whether such a firing constitutes an infringement on the
worker's right to practice religion is a separate issue.
The print shop owner, like the baker, can in principle refuse
the order but is subject to the same behavioral pattern
scrutiny as outlined above.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]To my mind the principle of "freedom of expression" means that someone
should not interfere with or impede someone else's ability to express
themselves legally.
I don't think the argument would fly in the US. A private print
shop is not a public channel.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]There are at least two ironies in the "Gay Cake" case that is still
ongoing in Northern Ireland.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43955734
The owners of a Northern Ireland bakery found to have discriminated
for refusing to make a "gay cake" were forced to act against their
religious beliefs, the Supreme Court has heard.
Ashers Bakery is challenging the ruling over its decision not to
make a cake iced with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage"...
The first irony is that the news media are expected to report the slogan
regardless of whether journalists or printers agree with it. There is
nothing illegal about the wording.
The second is that the lawyer with, his legal team, representing the
cake makers in court is required by law to present the cake-makers case
even if he doesn't share their beliefs.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr