2 Dozen Examples of Conscience

mr. wonder · #1 (**permalink**) 07-21-2015, 06:24 PM

Two Dozen Examples of Conscience

Quote:

•An online retailer might choose not to sell the Confederate Flag because of its association with slavery and secession.

•A tattoo artist might decline to ink a large swastika on the chest of a customer.

•A caterer might refuse to serve food at a bachelor party where there will be strippers.

•A private company might recognize same sex partnerships as marriages in their own benefits packages even in a state that doesn’t offer the same recognition.

•An ethically motivated vegan or kosher restauranteur might refuse to allow a pork BBQ on the patio that they otherwise rent to groups for parties. Or, perhaps, a Jewish talk show host might decline, or not decline, to pitch for Farmer John’s Pure Pork Sausage.

• A private computer company might choose to reject some submissions to its app store based on company values.

• A technology company might choose to not source its parts from China in view of its suppression of Falun Gong and Christianity and dismissiveness toward LGBT concerns.

• A freelance web designer might choose to not build a website for a local televangelist whom she thinks is misusing funds raised.

• A scientologist church might refuse to rent their meeting space to the local psychologist meet-up.

• An actor might choose not to play a part after seeing the script because of moral qualms about what is involved in the role.

• A national chain of bookstores might choose not to stock a book which denies the Holocaust, even if it is in high demand and the decision forces customers to look elsewhere.

• A sound mixer might refuse to master the tracks of a performing artist whose lyrics denigrate women.

• A Main Street ice-cream shop might decline to contribute to the annual Columbus Day Parade fund when solicited by the local Italian association after reading The Oatmeal.

• A grocery store might refuse to sell foods that include GMO ingredients.

• A bartender who has served a patron for years, after learning that this patron, when drunk, consistently walks home and verbally assaults his wife, might refuse service.

• A crisis counseling or adoption service might refuse to refer a client to an abortion clinic, not wanting to participate in what they regard as the killing of an innocent human person.

• An art gallery might choose to not feature artwork by an artist whose content is, to the curator, morally objectionable.

• A real estate agent might choose not to represent a house for sale that was previously the location of a crime.

• A T-shirt shop owner might refuse a job to print an inflammatory, anti-gay slogan on a hundred T-shirts.

• Doubting their therapeutic efficacy, a pharmacist might choose not to sell some popular essential oils to avoid implying endorsement.

• A cosmetics store might refuse to sell products that have been tested on animals.

• A private university might refuse to host a conservative speaker that a student group has invited.

• A large company might refuse to do business with another business that does not treat their laborers fairly.

• A coffee shop might refuse to entertain offers from suppliers who sell non-fair-trade coffee.

• A florist, after selling flowers to a gay customer for years, when asked to design the bouquets for his gay wedding, might politely decline to contribute her labor and artistry to a ceremony she is morally opposed to.

Decisions like these are made countless times every day. It is likely that you sympathize with some of the decisions, and not others. That is to be expected. The point is that it is the same principle of free exercise that protects in the sympathetic cases as in the unsympathetic. It is the same principle that permits a private company like Apple Inc. to discriminate between states by boycotting the one that violated its company’s values that ought to also protect another less powerful company when it declines to participate in events that violate its values. Freedom of conscience is for everyone.....

Freedom of Conscience Is For Everyone | Post at Afterall.net

Personally i can give a couple of examples on refusing to do certain work while i was on the Job.
I worked in a newspaper advertising dept. where we were assigned to create the ads for whatever AD clients the newspaper had. That was the job.

I refused to work on 1 liqueur ad i thought was over the line. I refused to work on couple of lowlife Bar ads that advertised very thinly veiled sexual hook ups events. And there was this one local store that was selling this really racist black Aunt Jeremiah on crack looking doll. I said i'm not working on that. Got more backlash from that than the others. But since there were 4 others in the office doing the same work it was fairly easy enough to accommodate in most cases. And most people outside of the office never knew it happened... most of the time. And BTW the Paper itself refused to print some clients Advertising based on it's own ethical standards..

The only other thing like that which wasn't even really job related was my boss wanted me to carve a couple of pumpkins for halloween. But i don't even celebrate halloween at home. Well it pissed people off that i didn't do it for them since i was always doing fun stuff like characatures of employees, cartoons and weird sic fi art.
My boss was really pissed that i didn't "help". But what could he say, it wasn't even a real job. Just office decoration. And I wasn't saying things like: " i'm not going to work around all you philistines and your pagan devil worshipping decorations...."see you in November... HEATHENS!!".
Not even close.
It's just that i didn't want to JOIN in CREATING it.
I don't know if that boss ever got that. or really got over that. He was in shock and seemed to take it personally that i refused. "it's just for fun."

But thankfully overall i was able to ride out most of my work life without having to compromise much and most of my bosses were able to accommodate myself and others i knew of who navigated issues of conscious --major and minor-- on the job.

It's seems to me something that's just Humane to do. you don't ask at home nurses that are allergic to cats to visit people with cats. you don't ask the orthodox Jewish sales guy to make the Hog House is Main account. You don't ask the truck driver with a drinking problem to make all the deliveries to the bars.
That's respecting other people IMO.

It's doesn't mean they Hate cats, or hogs, or bars.
but rather than accommodate people's individual humanity some people would like to SUE others for "not doing their jobs".

foundit66 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-21-2015, 06:47 PM

Seems to me a couple examples are missing.

A caterer can decide not to serve a bar mitzvah because the caterer thinks it furthers a religion that refuses to recognize Jesus as god.
A restaurant can decide not to serve blacks at a "whites only" counter because it violates the owner's religious beliefs.

But both of these examples were outlawed as illegal via the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A piece of legislation that has stood for 50+ years.
A piece of legislation we rarely (if ever

) hear complaints over while people fixate only on the gay issues.

And BTW, such legislation is passed by a majority. They have withstood legal challenges.
Such legislation only covers a very small "moral" spectrum. The vast majority of examples (as some were given in the first post) there is no legislation giving any commentary on the action.

For those who object to such legislation, you're free to try to revoke it by a majority vote.

300 H and H · #3 (**permalink**) 07-21-2015, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Seems to me a couple examples are missing.

A caterer can decide not to serve a bar mitzvah because the caterer thinks it furthers a religion that refuses to recognize Jesus as god.
A restaurant can decide not to serve blacks at a "whites only" counter because it violates the owner's religious beliefs.

But both of these examples were outlawed as illegal via the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A piece of legislation that has stood for 50+ years.
A piece of legislation we rarely (if ever

) hear complaints over while people fixate only on the gay issues.

And BTW, such legislation is passed by a majority. They have withstood legal challenges.
Such legislation only covers a very small "moral" spectrum. The vast majority of examples (as some were given in the first post) there is no legislation giving any commentary on the action.

For those who object to such legislation, you're free to try to revoke it by a majority vote.

Why did you bring this up? This is about conscience not about law...

Btw I don't think anyone believes Jesus is God. Son of God perhaps..

Conscience is not about anything you posted. It is what is in the hearts and minds of people, and can not be "legislated" by anyone.

Regards, Kirk

Lollie · #4 (**permalink**) 07-21-2015, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H

Btw I don't think anyone believes Jesus is God. Son of God perhaps..

Yes He is.
Part of the trinity- all one in the same.

saltwn · #5 (**permalink**) 07-21-2015, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

Two Dozen Examples of Conscience

Freedom of Conscience Is For Everyone | Post at Afterall.net

...
That's respecting other people IMO.

It's doesn't mean they Hate cats, or hogs, or bars.
but rather than accommodate people's individual humanity some people would like to SUE others for "not doing their jobs".

or because they broke the law.

foundit66 · #6 (**permalink**) 07-22-2015, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H

Why did you bring this up? This is about conscience not about law...

Then why is it posted in the "Civil Rights & Abortion" section?

Did you see the last comment in the first post?
"... rather than accommodate people's individual humanity some people would like to SUE others for "not doing their jobs"."

This does involve the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H

It is what is in the hearts and minds of people, and can not be "legislated" by anyone.

Some people try to insist such laws are about more than they actually are.

I agree wholeheartedly that hearts and minds of people cannot be legislated by anyone.
But in freely stating that, some will refuse to comprehend what that means and insist that I have an intent I readily admit cannot be achieved.

mr. wonder · #7 (**permalink**) 07-22-2015, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Seems to me a couple examples are missing.

A caterer can decide not to serve a bar mitzvah because the caterer thinks it furthers a religion that refuses to recognize Jesus as god.
A restaurant can decide not to serve blacks at a "whites only" counter because it violates the owner's religious beliefs.

But both of these examples were outlawed as illegal via the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A piece of legislation that has stood for 50+ years.
A piece of legislation we rarely (if ever

) hear complaints over while people fixate only on the gay issues.

And BTW, such legislation is passed by a majority. They have withstood legal challenges.
Such legislation only covers a very small "moral" spectrum. The vast majority of examples (as some were given in the first post) there is no legislation giving any commentary on the action.

For those who object to such legislation, you're free to try to revoke it by a majority vote.

I've addressed the general point before but i found another that makes the cases as well from a pro-homosexual marriage perspective.

Quote:

...As I argued in Newsweek a few years back, the “purist” libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregation—which had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated “private” discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.

We ultimately settled on rules barring race discrimination in employment, housing, and access to “public accommodations”—which, though it clearly restricted the associational freedom of some racist business owners within a limited domain, was nevertheless justifiable under the circumstances: The interest in restoring civic equality was so compelling that it trumped the interest in associational choice within that sphere. But we didn’t deny the existence of that interest—appalling as the racist’s exercise of it might be—and continue to recognize it in other domains. A racist can still invite only neighbors of certain races to dinner parties, or form exclusive private associations, or as a prospective employee choose to consider only job offers from firms run or staffed primarily by members of their own race. Partly, of course, this is because regulations in these domains would be difficult or impossible to enforce—but partly it’s because the burden on associational freedom involved in requiring nondiscrimination in these realms would be unacceptably high.

mojo-discrimination-lawSome of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some don’t. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We don’t see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while I’ve seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.

Rather, the actual cases we’ve been hearing about recently involve bigoted photographers or bakers—who run small businesses but are effectively acting as short-term employees—who balk at providing their services to gay couples who are planning weddings. (I take for granted that gay marriage should, of course, be legal everywhere.) What’s the balance of burdens in these cases? The discrimination involved here doesn’t plausibly deny the gay couples effective civic equality: There are plenty of bakers and photographers who would be only too happy to take their money. Under the circumstances, the urge to either fine or compel the services of these misguided homophobes comes across as having less to do with avoiding dire practical consequences for the denied couple than it does with symbolically punishing a few retrograde yokels for their reprehensible views. And much as I’d like for us all to pressure them to change those views—or at the very least shame them into changing their practices—if there turn out to be few enough of them that they’re not creating a systemic problem for gay citizens, it’s hard to see an interest sufficiently compelling to justify legal compulsion—especially in professions with an inherently expressive character, like photography. In short: Yes, these people are *******s, but that alone doesn’t tell us how to balance their interest in expressive association against competing interests at this particular point in our history....
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2014/02...scriminations/

this is the concept that some FAIL to want to admit into to their thinking. Secularly speaking the civil rights laws were addressing an issue on an deeply damaging level. But if the world were a better place then the laws would NOT have been appropriate. The civil rights laws would have been anti freedom. But hard cases make some laws that are sadly necessary.
the issue for homosexuals is NOT one where they're shut out of general commerce or free association in daily life. there's no real compelling interest to right the imagined wrong by completely overriding clear rights of conscience. The law becomes tool for hurt feelings and personal outrage. Not a way to address a real problem navigating society. But a way to punishment of those some see as "bigots".

bu bu bu bu but the LAW.
well the law is wrong. just as the Dred Scott case law was wrong, and laws on indefinite detention, and NSA spying and many others are wrong. Laws forcing people to do things against CLEAR long standing religious prohibitions are unjust and against the basic religious freedoms the country was founded on.

Just because the law or civil suits say it can force a baker "not to discriminate" it does not mean it's right. Anymore than the president saying he can "detain indefinitely without trial" makes it right.

foundit66 · #8 (**permalink**) 07-22-2015, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

I've addressed the general point before but i found another that makes the cases as well from a pro-homosexual marriage perspective.

I feel like the response misses the bigger picture.
It's really begging the actual question.

I am asking about religion and why it was included as well.

If somebody used that to say "We want racial issues addressed by business anti-discrimination legislation but not gay issues", I could sympathize with that position. (I wouldn't agree, but I could respect it)

But that's not all that happened with the 1964 Civil Rights act and the last 50 years, was it.
It's not just racial discrimination that's addressed in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is it.

If it WAS JUST race addressed in the 1964 Civil Rights act, I would see this in a very different light.

WHY was "religion" tacked on if you guys just want to compare race and sexual orientation and say that sexual orientation comes out as not as bad?

How about we compare religion and sexual orientation? Or, follow your example and compare religion and race?
We could just as easily substitute "religion" in for sexual orientation in your article.

Mr. Wonder, do YOU believe that the 1964 Civil Rights act should be canned?
I suspect your answer is yes. And I honestly believe your position is heartfelt out of this. As you put it "well the law is wrong."

But for others (including those who thanked your post), I find it rather interesting that I have pointed out this "Christians protected Christianity from business discrimination, but whine when gays want to do likewise" and left and right they run like cockroaches from addressing that point.

Some people talk incessantly about how awful gays are for wanting this protection and how they imagine our goal is to drive Christians out of business, but they never talk about their own motivation when Christians passed the exact same legislation protecting themselves.

THAT is the hypocrisy I want to expose.

So far, I have found NOBODY who claims gays are awful for wanting to pass anti-discrimination laws who will make the same proclamation (i.e. just as awful) for Christians who did the exact same damn thing 50+ years ago.
If you will be the first to make that explicit acknowledgement, I will consider that profound progress.

mr. wonder · #9 (**permalink**) 07-22-2015, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I feel like the response misses the bigger picture.
It's really begging the actual question.

Bigger picture? OK well I disagree and address why below.
"begging the question". uh NO. Not at all. Please don't randomly toss in another ill fitting logical fallacy here too c'mon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I am asking about religion and why it was included as well.
If somebody used that to say "We want racial issues addressed by business anti-discrimination legislation but not gay issues", I could sympathize with that position. (I wouldn't agree, but I could respect it)
But that's not all that happened with the 1964 Civil Rights act and the last 50 years, was it.
It's not just racial discrimination that's addressed in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is it.

If it WAS JUST race addressed in the 1964 Civil Rights act, I would see this in a very different light.

Well if we want to be specific the civil rights acts covers discrimination [/U][/B]based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. (-no homosexual weddings.-- BTW.) And if we read the act it's very obvious which group was specifically and primarily in mind. The Act state very specific provisions concerning issues that mainly blacks had to deal with on a daily basis at that time. For example interstate accommodations, school segregation etc..
Thankfully most of those issues have been addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

WHY was "religion" tacked on if you guys just want to compare race and sexual orientation and say that sexual orientation comes out as not as bad?

I suspect Religion and woman were "tacked on" because at the time being a JEW or a catholic still was an issue. Do we have to mention female discrimination?
But the employment sections of the act is where those groups were most addressed WITH blacks. There where those ---like some on this board today-- who wanted to fire people for "not doing their jobs" because of various religious convictions. Not working on Saturdays or Sundays for instance. Even when there was plenty of room for accommodation. Or they just didn't want to hire a jew, catholic or woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

How about we compare religion and sexual orientation? Or, follow your example and compare religion and race?
We could just as easily substitute "religion" in for sexual orientation in your article.

In the article? I'm not sure where you want to make the substitution.
But i've already compared the Cake baking or photo taking issue in other threads. And I'm perfectly FINE with a homosexual baker refusing to bake a cake that quotes Romans 1. I feel NO NEED to SUE the baker on the grounds of discrimination... UNLESS i go in the next day and ask for a birthday cake and they refuse. At that point it's groundless discrimination based on general dislike of my faith or person. NOT A SPECIFIC personally, ethically or morally offensive request.

It seems homosexuals and their supporters automatically want to LUMP a specific decline of service for religious conviction into a general fog of illegal "discrimination". And assume that ANYTHING not passing their skewed sniff test automatically fits THEIR definition. And reject OUT OF HAND all sincere religious conviction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Mr. Wonder, do YOU believe that the 1964 Civil Rights act should be canned?I suspect your answer is yes. And I honestly believe your position is heartfelt out of this. As you put it "well the law is wrong."

the laws i was calling wrong are the laws that seem to make it illegal to NOT to assist in homosexual marriages.
I have no problem with most of the 1964 act. As written in 1964. But I think at this point ...thankfully... it's becoming more an more obsolete, like laws a against horses on the highway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

...Some people talk incessantly about how awful gays are for wanting this protection and how they imagine our goal is to drive Christians out of business, but they never talk about their own motivation when Christians passed the exact same legislation protecting themselves.
THAT is the hypocrisy I want to expose.
....So far, I have found NOBODY who claims gays are awful for wanting to pass anti-discrimination laws who will make the same proclamation (i.e. just as awful) for Christians who did the exact same damn thing 50+ years ago.
If you will be the first to make that explicit acknowledgement, I will consider that profound progress.

soooo... Who did Christians sue and put out of business for denial of some christian specific service? Then celebrate it and go looking for new heathen offenders?
Give me some examples then maybe get how your making your comparison.

The only cases I can think of that compare are some equal access cases where a public venue is for rent by a gov't or private biz and a church tries to rent it but is denied. In most cases this is just plain old religious discrimination. Churches or christian groups have sued for access, but not with the intent of putting out of biz.
But most thinking Christians aren't shocked if a secular Jewish org or Kosher Deli doesn't want it's venue used for "Jewish Evangelism Week". It's stupid to assume that the org would allow it or that they should be forced to.

... Should Christians they think the Jewish org or deli owners are just closet bigots and "cultural Judaism" is just a cover for "discrimination.". LOOK they don't even GO to synagogue that often, And some have christmas trees at home!! huh?!! huh?!! It CAN ONLY BE plain ol bigoted discrimination!!!

right?

foundit66 · #10 (**permalink**) 07-22-2015, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

I suspect Religion and woman were "tacked on" because at the time being a JEW or a catholic still was an issue. Do we have to mention female discrimination?

1) Were they anywhere the level of "issue" of being black?
If the answer is no, then it's a red herring to insist that we compare gays to the black discrimination to verify whether gays qualify...

2) Your very admission indicates a lowering of the bar.
It's easily recognized that being gay IS "an issue".
By your reasoning, gays are just as legitimately included.
Unless you want to start making up NEW reasons...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

But the employment sections of the act is where those groups were most addressed WITH blacks. There where those ---like some on this board today-- who wanted to fire people for "not doing their jobs" because of various religious convictions. Not working on Saturdays or Sundays for instance. Even when there was plenty of room for accommodation. Or they just didn't want to hire a jew, catholic or woman.

Or a gay person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

In the article? I'm not sure where you want to make the substitution.

Any place "gay" or "sexual orientation" is mentioned...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

But i've already compared the Cake baking or photo taking issue in other threads.

And you're running off on a tangent.

Let's rephrase the question.
Was tacking on "religion" to the 1964 Civil Rights Act okay?
If it was okay, WHY is it okay to do that for Christians but not for gays?
Are religious / "moral" objections to people's religions somehow not okay in a way that we refuse to allow for gays?
And can that last question be answered in an OBJECTIVE way which demonstrates something other than an opinion which was simply voted upon and did not win?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

It seems homosexuals and their supporters automatically want to LUMP a specific decline of service for religious conviction into a general fog of illegal "discrimination".

No. Not "automatically".
When a vote was held that results in legislation which creates the appropriate law, THEN it IS lumped in with the other categories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

And reject OUT OF HAND all sincere religious conviction.

But that's what already happened in 1964
Show me ANY "sincere religious conviction" exception allowed for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

the laws i was calling wrong are the laws that seem to make it illegal to NOT to assist in homosexual marriages.

Which are similar to the laws which make it illegal to NOT to assist in an interracial marriage.
Or to NOT to assist in a bar mitzvah.

Are those laws also wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

I have no problem with most of the 1964 act. As written in 1964.

Why is it okay to protect a Christian from business discrimination but heinous to protect a gay person?
People wanting to discriminate. They can have "sincere religious beliefs" for both cases, can they not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

soooo... Who did Christians sue and put out of business for denial of some christian specific service?

Irrelevant. We're talking about the existence of the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

But most thinking Christians aren't shocked if a secular Jewish org or Kosher Deli doesn't want it's venue used for "Jewish Evangelism Week". It's stupid to assume that the org would allow it or that they should be forced to.

Apples and oranges.
But to run with your flawed analogy, then why did Christians write the law that way in the first place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

Should Christians they think the Jewish org or deli owners are just closet bigots and "cultural Judaism" is just a cover for "discrimination.".

The label of "bigot" is irrelevant.
I am not using it so it's just emotional sensationalism for you to try to present that.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr. wonder For This Useful Post:
300 H and H, jimbo

The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lollie For This Useful Post:
300 H and H, mr. wonder, Surly

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr. wonder For This Useful Post:
300 H and H, Joe Shoe