FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[Seth]

Seth, how can you be a Tolerist while generalizing and being so bigoted and intolerant towards non believers?

Because it's a discussion forum, of course, not real life. This persona has an agenda to do unto Atheists what Atheists do unto people of faith, as a way of demonstrating the feet of clay of those "non-believers" who presume to infringe on the religious rights of others and demean and disparage them at every turn.

Turnabout is fair play.

Besides, the FFRF is not "peaceably" practicing its religion in making a bogus civil rights complaint that's sure to cost the florists money they can't afford, it's misusing the law to harass people who merely wish to pick and choose with whom they do business based on political beliefs, which is perfectly lawful. So, I'm defending people of faith against the intolerant religious bigots who are initiating force and fraud.

[Seth]

Hmmm...The way I read it is that certain florists wouldn't deliver because they feared some kind of reprisal. Doesn't say from whom but I think it's pretty clear that 'religious nutters' are what is meant.

Could be, but it's still a perfectly valid business decision.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, how can you be a Tolerist while generalizing and being so bigoted and intolerant towards non believers?

He preaches Tolerism and practices inTolerism.

[Gallstones]

Seth, how can you be a Tolerist while generalizing and being so bigoted and intolerant towards non believers?

Because it's a discussion forum, of course, not real life.

Yes, I forget that sometimes.

This persona has an agenda to do unto Atheists what Atheists do unto people of faith, as a way of demonstrating the feet of clay of those "non-believers" who presume to infringe on the religious rights of others and demean and disparage them at every turn.

Turnabout is fair play.

Some atheists. A minority I bet.
Besides we do have a right to assert our rights too. And that is what this girl did. That is not an infringement, demeaning or disparaging of people of faith. In her case the people of faith are demeaning her and worse. Some of us get our dander up about that and feel it calls for some turn about from our direction. It is a duty as well as being fair.

esides, the FFRF is not "peaceably" practicing its religion in making a bogus civil rights complaint that's sure to cost the florists money they can't afford, it's misusing the law to harass people who merely wish to pick and choose with whom they do business based on political beliefs, which is perfectly lawful. So, I'm defending people of faith against the intolerant religious bigots who are initiating force and fraud.

This will require more thought and reading on my part before I can respond.

[amused]

"People of Faith" have enough muscle in the US that they are a major force in one of the political parties (out of two) that run the nation. They don't need protection from a minority on a small internet forum.

[amused]

Atheism is orders of magnitude more dangerous to human life than religion will ever be. This is in no small part due to the fact that atheists have no moral compass because they have no fear of judgment for their evil and selfish acts at the hands of a greater power.

(intervening quotes removed because of nesting limit)

Or, a somewhat obvious bit of trolling.

Well, yeah, of course.

So how is that any different from being disingenuous, dishonest and fraudulent?

[Gallstones]

Atheism is orders of magnitude more dangerous to human life than religion will ever be. This is in no small part due to the fact that atheists have no moral compass because they have no fear of judgment for their evil and selfish acts at the hands of a greater power.

(intervening quotes removed because of nesting limit)

Or, a somewhat obvious bit of trolling.

Well, yeah, of course.

So how is that any different from being disingenuous, dishonest and fraudulent?

When a person plays devil's advocate are they dishonest and fraudulent?

In debate, doesn't a person sometimes argue a position s/he doesn't hold?

Not that some personas don't push the envelope to breaking sometimes.

I just do this

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Devil's advocate" or an excuse for being a troll? The original Devil's Advocates were priests, IIRC, and they weren't DAs all the damn time.

[Gallstones]

"Devil's advocate" or an excuse for being a troll? The original Devil's Advocates were priests, IIRC, and they weren't DAs all the damn time.

Semantics.

[Coito ergo sum]

@Seth

Well I take your point, but you could also make the argument that more people have died and been killed by democratic governments than by monarchical states and as such conclude democracy is evil. After all I'm sure if you tallied up the kill numbers for all the democratic states during the 20th century you'll find that the amount of people that died in their wars and concentration camps and genocides and ethnic cleansing is several magnitudes higher than those states with absolute monarchy. Therefore one should be more comfortable with an absolute divine ruler than a chosen government.

I imagine you're right in re "democratic governments" depending on how you define "democracy." Even Stalin's USSR was putatively "democratic." Our Founders recognized the evil of democracy, which is why they leashed it and chained it and caged it in so many ways with our Constitution and laws, so as to keep a dangerous and ravening beast under careful control, lest it break free and manifest itself as the tyranny of the majority, as it always does when not carefully restrained.

Now it's a ravenous beast, but when it comes to religious people voting to impose their religions on people, you laud democracy as the appropriate decision-making method....

[Coito ergo sum]

But wait, atheism is not a religion, right? So, how can anyone engage in unlawful "religious discrimination" against an atheist?

For the purposes of federal discrimination laws, atheism is protected as much as any religion. I.e. someone discriminating in hiring or firing based on "religion" or "lack of religion" is still violating the law.

I think in Massachusetts a retail store can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, etc. and that would include lack of religion or atheism.

Yup. But political discrimination is permissible.

Yes, but atheism is considered a religious view, not a political one (or not JUST a political one, even if it is political). Many religious views are also political - like pro-life, and that sort of thing - well any view can be political.

Gaylor goes on to whine:

“We have basic civil rights standards in our society. A business can‘t shun you because you’re an atheist,” the atheist leader said. “You do not have the right to refuse to do business with someone based on categories and that includes religion. It‘s as if they said ’I will not deliver to a black person.’”

Problem is, it's not illegal for a business to discriminate based on POLITICAL (or any other) belief. It's perfectly legal to refuse to serve Democrats, or Progressives or Communists...or atheists.

Atheism is included among "religious beliefs" though, not political beliefs. It's the same as saying you're discriminating based on someone not being a Christian and claiming that you're not discriminating based on religion. The EEOC and all State discrmination/civil rights agencies are very clear on that, and every high court addressing the issue has been very clear on that.

She wasn't discriminated against because of her religion or lack thereof, she was discriminated against because of her political activism. Secularism, which is the exclusion of religion from government, and is the basis of her First Amendment Establishment Clause claim in re the banner, is not a religious activity, it is a secular political activity invoking secular political law. Therefore it is perfectly lawful to discriminate against her because of her POLITICAL beliefs.

Now you are assuming something that is in dispute. If the flowers were not going to be delivered because the owner of the flower store wanted to stay out of the limelight or because he didn't like political activists, then that might well be found to be lawful. However, the claim is that he did not do the delivery because the customer was atheist. We'll find out where the evidence leads when we see the evidence, which we haven't.

The Civil Rights Act says that everyone shall be entitled to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Since atheism is not a religion, according to every atheist I've ever debated the subject with, it does not fall under the protection of the Civil Rights Act.

It's not a religion, per se, but the word "religion" is very broad as it is used in discrimination laws, and includes lack of religion, and lack of belief in a religion or lack of belief in a god or gods.

You're free to make the argument that a narrower usage is appropriate, but your argument has been made and rejected in all 50 states and by the Supreme Court.

I'm not making that argument AT ALL. I'm talking about her, and the FFRF's Secularist political activism, not their atheistic beliefs. Discrimination based on political belief is NOT protected.

And, nobody is alleging that it is. You're claiming that "secularism" is the issue here. That's not what FFRF is claiming.

So, Gaylor, you're wrong, and people have every right to discriminate against and shun atheists, just like they can discriminate against and shun Communists or Marxists based on any category they choose OTHER THAN those specifically listed in the Civil Rights Act.

That, my dear, is called "freedom of (dis)association" and it's guaranteed by the First Amendment as a right.

No, Seth. You are wrong. The law is not what you say it is. You may advocate for a change in the law, but you're wrong now. She is right.

No, you're wrong, and the law is what I say it is. You simply refuse to acknowledge the distinction between discriminating "because" someone is an atheist and discriminating based on political beliefs and activism, which is what she was engaged in.

No, you're simply assuming the truth of something that is in dispute in the case.

YOU said that discrimination based on atheism is legal, because atheism is not a religion. Discrimination based on atheism is, however, not legal. So you are flat out fucking wrong when you say it is legal. It's not. Atheism is, in fact, protected by the civil rights laws in all 50 states. Period. It's not arguable. It's a fact.

Now, your sidestep to the issue of this not being about atheism per se, but that the flowers weren't delivered because of some political belief other than atheism, then you may be right. You are right that a flower shop may discriminate against political beliefs, like not delivering to Democrats or Republicans. But, you can't at the moment say that that's why the store didn't deliver. FFRF says it's because of atheism. If it was because of atheism, then the FFRF will win. If it was because of non-religious political belief, then the defendant will win.

[Svartalf]

Seth, how can you be a Tolerist while generalizing and being so bigoted and intolerant towards non believers?

Because tolerism means tolering people's various faiths, but only if they have one?
(and what does that mean for faithless curs like Salamander Biggrinch?)

[Svartalf]

"Devil's advocate" or an excuse for being a troll? The original Devil's Advocates were priests, IIRC, and they weren't DAs all the damn time.

, yep, Advocatus Diaboli is an important function, it's also a wonderful excuse for saying the most outrageous drivel, if you feel it advances your side of the argument, or serves a point.

[Coito ergo sum]

...But the florist made a decision to discriminate based on religious grounds, no?

Evidently not. At least one of them claims it was a matter of safety for their staff. I don't know that any of them explicitly stated it was because she was an Atheist.

People here are making presumptions about the motivations of the various florists that may be unwarranted. I'm pointing out (and hopefully the florists will see my blog) that if they are asked, all they need to say is "I disagree with the political activism of the FFRF and refuse to do business with them based on their secular political agenda." This will frustrate the complaint that the FFRF is trying to make quite nicely. And so long as they don't shoot their mouths off about discriminating based on atheism, they will walk away clean.

This is a tactic that I'm putting out there for anyone to use against the FFRF if they want to shun the organization (or any other activist secular organization for that matter) and refuse to do business with it that will achieve the objective of pissing the FFRF nitwits off while remaining strictly legal.

Live by the letter of the law, die by the letter of the law.

This is the rub, of course.

It's not "all they need to say." They need to give testimony and then the finder of fact will decide who to believe. The first assumption is that they will not "just say" anything, but that they will tell the truth. This is often a false assumption, but it's the purpose of being put under oath, to ask people to tell the truth.

If their reason was "I disagree with the political activism of..." then they may well prove their case.

There may be other evidence, though, that such a reason isn't the real reason. Some witness may come forward and claim to have heard the owner say he wouldn't deliver to atheists, or something like that.

So, you need to be careful about deciding the facts before they've come out. It is just as easy for me to say that "all some witness has to say is the owner said he wouldn't serve atheists," as it is for you to say the owner just hated the FFRF and thought they were scumbags and he wouldn't serve scumbags. Yes, if the latter is correct, then the flower shop will probably win, but if the former is correct then the FFRF will win.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Devil's advocate" or an excuse for being a troll? The original Devil's Advocates were priests, IIRC, and they weren't DAs all the damn time.

, yep, Advocatus Diaboli is an important function, it's also a wonderful excuse for saying the most outrageous drivel, if you feel it advances your side of the argument, or serves a point.

And, again, they weren't full time.