FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[Coito ergo sum]

The reason WHY one discriminates is important, and all the florists need to do is say "it was for safety reasons" which is a legitimate business decision, or "I don't like her political activism" or "I don't support the secular political objectives of the FFRF" and the discrimination is completely lawful.

Just because the store CAN assert something doesn't mean that the store WILL assert that thing, and just because the store asserts it in defense of a suit doesn't mean it is true. In the latter case, whatever the store asserts will be viewed in light of all the evidence. Maybe the store owner said something on a different occasion that shows he really did want to discriminate based on atheism, and he is just making up the excuse that, as you say, he can so easily invent.

[Seth]

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

He preaches Tolerism and practices inTolerism.

Only when it comes to the intolerant. Nothing in Tolerism requires one to tolerate non-peaceable acts, or, for that matter, to hold one's tongue in a debate.

[Seth]

The reason WHY one discriminates is important, and all the florists need to do is say "it was for safety reasons" which is a legitimate business decision, or "I don't like her political activism" or "I don't support the secular political objectives of the FFRF" and the discrimination is completely lawful.

Just because the store CAN assert something doesn't mean that the store WILL assert that thing, and just because the store asserts it in defense of a suit doesn't mean it is true. In the latter case, whatever the store asserts will be viewed in light of all the evidence. Maybe the store owner said something on a different occasion that shows he really did want to discriminate based on atheism, and he is just making up the excuse that, as you say, he can so easily invent.

That's what I'm saying. Stores SHOULD discriminate against the FFRF because of it's secular political activism if they want to do so, and they should be very open and clear that they are discriminating for reasons of political opinion and action, not religious belief.

That way they can avoid the FFRF's attempts at "civil rights" harassment.

Anyway, it's up to the FFRF to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular store owner discriminated based on religion (or irreligion) and NOT up on political activism or belief. If vendors are careful never to mention atheism as a reason, and only mention political ideology, they'll be safe from FFRF harassment while being able to shun the FFRF by refusing to do business with them.

The same is true, by the way, for vendors who refuse to do business with Planned Parenthood, including refusing to work on their new clinics or sell them goods. That is a political act of shunning that's perfectly lawful and should be done by anyone who opposes abortion who might have occasion to trade with Planned Parenthood.

[Seth]

"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.

Nor am I. I just do it here, for fun, entertainment and enlightenment, this not being real life after all.

[Seth]

...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.

So? If they are careful, they won't have to lie and can tell the truth. That they might despise atheists for religious reasons does not inevitably mean that they discriminated against the FFRF for religious reasons. They can hold that opinion and still operate based on the secular political practices of the FFRF and be justified in doing so.

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.

Could be, but that's up to the FFRF to prove. Like I said, businesses should be careful to extirpate "atheist" from their lexicon just as they would extirpate "Jew" or "Muslim" in making statements about why they choose to discriminate against some particular person.

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.

[/quote]

Yup, they've got to be careful, which is why I'm pointing this out. In the future, any business that doesn't like the FFRF's political activism OR their atheist tendencies need only elide reference to atheism and concentrate on their secular political activism to avoid getting into trouble with the feds.

And this tactic can be used by people of faith against ANY organization that invokes the First Amendment Establishment Clause against religious freedom or engages in political activism that a person of faith doesn't like. It's as simple as saying "I didn't refuse to serve them because they are atheists, I refused to serve them because of their secular political activism." It's the perfect defense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did you hear something?

[Seth]

Did you hear something?

Just the sound of your poo hitting the plexi.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nope, nothing. Must change the batteries in my hearing aid.

[maiforpeace]

Darrell Barker is a member here. Maybe he can get Annie Laurie Gaynor to answer you directly Seth.

[Seth]

Darrell Barker is a member here. Maybe he can get Annie Laurie Gaynor to answer you directly Seth.

Fine by me. I'd be happy to take her on.

[Warren Dew]

Atheism is not a religion, but it is a religious issue. This case should not be any different than one where Gaylor was from a different religion and objected to the banner.

Whether that's covered by the civil rights act or the constitution I'm not sure. I think it's clear that Rhode Island may legislate rules about florists as it wishes, though.

[Audley Strange]

No, not at all. You are presenting a strawman image of Libertarianism, which is not the anarchic, amoral society that you falsely impute it is. Libertarianism supports fully the free exercise of religion, or not, because Libertarianism does not presume to interfere in other people's lives or how they live them so long as they do not initiate force or fraud on others as a part of their lifestyle. This is not anarchy or amorality, indeed Libertarianism depends on strong moral and ethical behavior as a fundamental presumption of an adult, well-formed personality. One does not make contracts with sociopaths because one cannot depend on sociopaths to keep their word and uphold there contractual obligations. Trust and ethical behavior are essential to Libertarianism because when adults with well-formed personalities act in moral and ethical ways, less governance is required in the society, and less governance is always better than more governance in any society, if it can be achieved by voluntary cooperation, contract and ethical and moral strength.

Because most theistic religious dogma calls for moral and ethical behavior, at least between members of the religion (this is true of Islam as much as it is Christianity), religion is a strong motivator to moral and ethical behavior, which Libetarianism supports. Libertarianism would not support conflict or immoral or unethical behavior between competing religions or sects however, as that involves the initiation of force and fraud. But so long as the religion supports the peaceable exercise of faith and moral and ethical obedience to the principles of Libertarianism, which include individual liberty and freedom of contract, Libertarianism is on the side of religion, not atheism or anarchy.

This is not to say that Libertarianism is opposed to atheism however, so long as the practice of atheism, whatever that might be, comports with the principles of Libertarianism.

That being said, radical militant religious Atheism often involves the initiation of force and/or fraud on others, so it cannot be supported by Libertarianism, any more that Libertarianism supports radical militant Islam or Christianity in their quest to impose religious beliefs on others.

Actually, whether it be through misreading or poorly constructed sentences or what have you you are mistaken. I was not erecting a Strawman about Libertarianism but suggesting that since governments and religions co-opt each other into large single moral control systems, that by eroding religion one erodes such a single Statist monopoly of thought and behaviour, into something akin to feudal city states or as Romer envisions meat space "affinity groups". Which I thought, being beneficial to the Libertarian ideal might encourage Libertarians to motivate themselves towards that end by helping to erode religious influence upon the state, rather than support an archaic, increasingly restrictive monoculture which is the antithesis of their vision.

[Seth]

Atheism is not a religion, but it is a religious issue. This case should not be any different than one where Gaylor was from a different religion and objected to the banner.

Atheism can be a religion, and often is. But it's also a political cause in many cases, where it's called "secularism."

When the basis of the complaint is political and secularist in nature, which is inevitably the case whenever the First Amendment Establishment Clause is invoked, then one is free to discriminate against such political activism and political activists. This is true, of course, because one does not have to be religious in order to support, advocate, or be an activist for secularism.

Whether that's covered by the civil rights act or the constitution I'm not sure. I think it's clear that Rhode Island may legislate rules about florists as it wishes, though.

And evidently it doesn't include either florists or political discrimination in its civil rights law.

[Seth]

No, not at all. You are presenting a strawman image of Libertarianism, which is not the anarchic, amoral society that you falsely impute it is. Libertarianism supports fully the free exercise of religion, or not, because Libertarianism does not presume to interfere in other people's lives or how they live them so long as they do not initiate force or fraud on others as a part of their lifestyle. This is not anarchy or amorality, indeed Libertarianism depends on strong moral and ethical behavior as a fundamental presumption of an adult, well-formed personality. One does not make contracts with sociopaths because one cannot depend on sociopaths to keep their word and uphold there contractual obligations. Trust and ethical behavior are essential to Libertarianism because when adults with well-formed personalities act in moral and ethical ways, less governance is required in the society, and less governance is always better than more governance in any society, if it can be achieved by voluntary cooperation, contract and ethical and moral strength.

Because most theistic religious dogma calls for moral and ethical behavior, at least between members of the religion (this is true of Islam as much as it is Christianity), religion is a strong motivator to moral and ethical behavior, which Libetarianism supports. Libertarianism would not support conflict or immoral or unethical behavior between competing religions or sects however, as that involves the initiation of force and fraud. But so long as the religion supports the peaceable exercise of faith and moral and ethical obedience to the principles of Libertarianism, which include individual liberty and freedom of contract, Libertarianism is on the side of religion, not atheism or anarchy.

This is not to say that Libertarianism is opposed to atheism however, so long as the practice of atheism, whatever that might be, comports with the principles of Libertarianism.

That being said, radical militant religious Atheism often involves the initiation of force and/or fraud on others, so it cannot be supported by Libertarianism, any more that Libertarianism supports radical militant Islam or Christianity in their quest to impose religious beliefs on others.

Actually, whether it be through misreading or poorly constructed sentences or what have you you are mistaken. I was not erecting a Strawman about Libertarianism but suggesting that since governments and religions co-opt each other into large single moral control systems, that by eroding religion one erodes such a single Statist monopoly of thought and behaviour, into something akin to feudal city states or as Romer envisions meat space "affinity groups". Which I thought, being beneficial to the Libertarian ideal might encourage Libertarians to motivate themselves towards that end by helping to erode religious influence upon the state, rather than support an archaic, increasingly restrictive monoculture which is the antithesis of their vision.

This falsely presumes that religion is inherently statist. Libertarianism has no problem with "affinity groups" at all. Indeed it's very philosophical basis is that individuals must be allowed to group themselves together as they see fit and create a society that best serves their mutual interests. The primary requirement of any such society is, however, that no one may be forced into association with others against their will. They may, however, be excluded from a society through "shunning" if their behavior is antithetical to the peace and order, and moral structure, of the society.

Therefore, if a society of religious persons wishes to constitute itself under certain religious rules, it's free do do so, and so long as they honor their contracts with others and do not initiate force or fraud on others, anyone who interacts with that society does so on that society's terms or is simply ignored and shunned.

Since no one in the society can be compelled to trade or interact with another against their will, anyone who doesn't fit in will likely decide to move on and find another community that better suits their social and moral code.

There is no need to destroy religion in Libertarianism because Libertarians are happy to allow people to live their lives as they see fit. If they want to live in a restrictive religious monoculture, that is their right, and no one has a right to interfere with them so long as everyone in that community is there voluntarily.

If you don't like that particular community or culture, go start your own somewhere else. It's really just that simple.

Since "government" in Libertarianism is kept small and weak, it cannot be co-opted to initiate force or fraud on others, and if it tries, it can and will be destroyed and put down by everyone else in self defense. Thus, a theocratic community might impose religious edicts on its voluntary members and be left strictly alone by other communities. Those other communities might choose not to trade with the religious community, or they may decide to do so, if the community demonstrates that it honors contracts and abides by Libertarian principles. But if that community tries to impose its theocratic rules on others by force or fraud, then other communities can cut it off from trade and commerce, or, at need, use physical force in self defense to prevent that community from initiating force or fraud.

So no, extirpating religion is not a Libertarian ideal because that would be infringing on the rights of religious people to band together and live their lives as they choose.

[Audley Strange]

Certainly if you think that those who use "the noble lie" to bind a state together, then you must accept that they are doing so knowing it is a control mechanism. While I agree that such affinity groups should have the ability to go off an do things on their own currently, that is not feasible. One of the main hurdling blocks to that is the use of "the noble lie" to enforce a false commonality of belief and moral behaviour up and to legislating for such moral behaviour. I thought that would be (pardon the pun) anathema to someone who is a Libertarian since it seems to me to go completely in another direction, especially in a Republic which has in earnest tried to keep church and state from interfering with each other, precisely for those reasons it seems to me.