- Sep 28, 2004
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
So both of these guys are making it perfectly clear that they know perfectly well that:Well then, this seems like an appropriate place to point out that upthread, both of these folks indicated they were in favor of service providers in the writing-customer-messages-for-pay business being allowed to refuse to write a message only Jews would want.
I have said that messages promoting hate or violence could be refused from anyone.
Even saintly Jews wanting to kill people.
But if the baker makes cakes for one person having a harmless celebration that does not involve hate or violence he should be required to make them for all people wanting the same.
Even people he has an ignorant hatred towards.
Personally, this is why I enjoy having a publicly afforded referee for resolving such conflicts of interest.
It comes down to having a store where you and your customers may feel safe. I would not allow a customer in my doors who expressed a desire to harm others of my customers through whatever means.
The minute that hate is expressed, they can go.
If anyone wants to try suing me for "discriminating against hate", you can, I suppose, try. They will not win.
"Refusing (that which a specific group selectively asks for within the general class of services or acts, specifically) is a long standing, textbook example of discrimination against (group). In fact that may be one of the bullet point definitions. It's one I would certainly nominate."
"The message cannot be separated from the only people that would want that message."
are simply not true. They know perfectly well that rejecting a message and rejecting a group are two different things even when only that group wants that message. But this does not seem to create any cognitive dissonance -- when we're discussing a message they like, they invoke their principle with a straight face in order to escalate their accusations against the people they hate; but they flush the so-called principle down the toilet as soon as the topic changes to a message they disapprove of.
And if people who think like this are given the power to enforce their policy, how will they exercise that power? How will they choose which way to tilt their double standard? Both of these guys have made that perfectly clear too. They will throw out their principle when the message is hate and violence and wanting to kill people and expressing a desire to harm others; and they will define whatever opinions they find distasteful -- even merely saying the Jews have a valid territorial claim -- to be "hate" and "violence" and "wanting to kill people" and "expressing a desire to harm others". This is not rule of law they're advocating. They're in favor of making their own opinions the state's established religion, no different from requiring bakers to draw crucifixes while allowing them to refuse to draw the Star of David.
That's what they call saying the Jews own some land. I wonder what they'd call expressing the opinion that the Palestinians have a valid territorial claim, by actually aiming rockets at Israeli noncombatants and actually murdering twelve Jews? A dog peeing in the neighbor's yard, I guess.