I was speaking about this in the "Twin Peaks Shootout" forum. The extreme left is not only wanting to ensure that the people follow their political left, (such as the baker and florist with Gay Marriage), but they want to ensure that their positions are completely believed, not just commercially supported. I link the following for the most tolerant nation on the face of the globe and the muck that is coming from it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/jewelry-store-sign-prompts-same-sex-couple-to-ask-for-refund-1.3077192

So let me get this straight... It is a problem if you won't cook a cake for a homosexual wedding. It is a problem if you make wedding rings for the couple.

So you must serve a homosexual wedding, but you must believe the way the homosexual does as well.

Does this qualify as intolerance of others opinions even though they are being served commercially?

Well, I don't know the argument is helped by referring to the extreme left. These are difficult balancing acts that have to made. But since the customers themselves were treated well and services were apparently done competently, the shop is entitled to its money...However, that sign could and almost certainly will have a chilling effect with regard to potential gay customers, that's the main concern. Apparently, this sign was not up all of the time. As the customer said, he is not telling the shop what owner should believe, only that it should not be posted in the shop. Would we have a problem if the shop served black customers but had a sign that said let's keep whites and blacks segregated? They can get their money but the shop is discriminating against gays by putting up that sign.

How "tolerant" is it to put up the sign?

The sign should not matter. The commercial services were provided, as desired with the situation of bakery and florist. The clientele wanted service, and received it in this case.

What they didn't want was to have to see an opinion that is contrary to theirs.

What happens if a store is displaying a rainbow flag outside their store, but I don't want to see that. Should I expect them to remove the flag because I do not want to be offended by their opposite opinion?

That seems like the same thing. People need to toughen up about feelings.

The issue: should a store be allowed to put up discriminatory views against a group if it at least is willing to serve the group?

Does your example of the rainbow ribbon exhibit a view that discriminates against you?
Imagine you went into a store that had signs saying negative things about white people. Ok, you just go to another store. What if all or most other stores said the same thing?

It's not about being sensitive-- it's about discrimination .

bbauska wrote:The sign should not matter.

Why not? Are we only talking about tolerance from one side here?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:The sign should not matter.

Why not? Are we only talking about tolerance from one side here?

Good question? Are we? That is what I asked you, and you chose to answer with another question. (I am used to that from you though)

I will ask again, for your benefit...

What happens if a store is displaying a rainbow flag outside their store, but I don't want to see that. Should I expect them to remove the flag because I do not want to be offended by their opposite opinion?

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:The sign should not matter.

Why not? Are we only talking about tolerance from one side here?

Good question? Are we? That is what I asked you, and you chose to answer with another question. (I am used to that from you though)

Sometimes it's a way to highlight flaws or the assumptions made in the original question.

I will ask again, for your benefit...

What happens if a store is displaying a rainbow flag outside their store, but I don't want to see that. Should I expect them to remove the flag because I do not want to be offended by their opposite opinion?

I don't see how flying a rainbow flag is intolerant or discriminatory. I can see why the sign at the jewellers is intolerant and suggests discrimination. Can't you?

The thing is that all I can see has happened so far is that the couple have asked for their money back and publicised it. The first part may or may not be resolved in any way, so let's not assume that the Evil Extreme Left ruling Canuckistan will impose their Gay Sharia Laws (and yes, I am ridiculing your rhetoric, because it's ridiculous).

The second part, well, if they didn't want people to know about their views on marriage, why put a sign up in their store? Freedom of expression works two ways - you can offend, and people can respond by telling you they are offended. Maybe people need to be less sensitive, but maybe those who offend need to realise that works both ways too.

freeman3 wrote:The issue: should a store be allowed to put up discriminatory views against a group if it at least is willing to serve the group?

Does your example of the rainbow ribbon exhibit a view that discriminates against you?
Imagine you went into a store that had signs saying negative things about white people. Ok, you just go to another store. What if all or most other stores said the same thing?

It's not about being sensitive-- it's about discrimination .

Actually, it's not discrimination. In fact, the lesbian couple recommended the jeweler to others. Everything was fine until a friend of theirs subsequently saw the sign.

A sign promoting a point of view is not discrimination. It didn't say "your kind ain't welcome here." And, in fact, even if it did, the shop's actions spoke loudly.

In this case, the lesbians were fine until they found out the jeweler was not in philosophical agreement. That somehow tainted their rings . . . and hurt their feelings.

I get your sarcasm, and I appreciate your finally responding.

My point is that I see the rainbow flag as something that goes against my religion. They can offend with the placement of that symbol. This vendor cannot place his sign in your opinion because it may offend.

That is a double standard.

Show me what action the jeweler committed that was discrimination, and not just what he thinks.

To answer your question: I do not see what the jeweler did that was discriminatory or intolerant. He had the temerity to display his views but not act upon them. Is that wrong to have views that may be different as long as you don't act upon them toward others? Putting up a sign is no more an action of discrimination than displaying a rainbow flag is.

bbauska

My point is that I see the rainbow flag as something that goes against my religion

In what way?

bbauska wrote:I get your sarcasm, and I appreciate your finally responding.

And I appreciate your sarcasm also.

My point is that I see the rainbow flag as something that goes against my religion. They can offend with the placement of that symbol. This vendor cannot place his sign in your opinion because it may offend. [/quote]I did not say that they "cannot place his sign" and that is not my opinion. I know it frustrates you when I don't give the answers you want me to, but there's no need to put them in my mouth for me.

He can place his sign. And his customers can complain and ask for their money back.

That is a double standard.

Actually, I was attempting to point out your double standard. You are complaining about the intolerance of people who don't like the sign, but not the people who put it up. Both are being intolerant.

Show me what action the jeweler committed that was discrimination, and not just what he thinks.

I did not say it "was" discrimination, but that it "suggests" it. He displayed a sign (he can think what he likes, but we only know because he put a large sign up on the counter window. Given what the business does (which includes providing services and goods relating to marriage), and that it seems they had gained custom from single-sex couples for their ceremonies, it does seem an odd place to send a "message" if it's not to at least chastise the gay customer.

To answer your question: I do not see what the jeweler did that was discriminatory or intolerant. He had the temerity to display his views but not act upon them. Is that wrong to have views that may be different as long as you don't act upon them toward others? Putting up a sign is no more an action of discrimination than displaying a rainbow flag is.

His views are intolerant of gay marriage. Assuming that he agrees with his own sign (which it seems is a reasonable assumption). Displaying a sign is an act. He can keep his views to himself. He can express them outside of his business.

Is it "wrong" to hold different views? No. I've not seen any indication that he's been accused of breaking a law, just that some customers are not happy and want their money back. Which is very different.

You see, the freedom of expression is about the law not stopping you from being able to express things (and even that has limits). But it is not about freedom from reaction to your expression. Expression IS an act.

Wake me when they start trying to pass a law which forces this jeweller to give them their money back.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

My point is that I see the rainbow flag as something that goes against my religion

In what way?

Maybe his religion has tenets against:

The Protestant reform leader Thomas Muntzer: http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2011/03 ... -communia/
The city of Cuszco, Peru: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cusco
Co-operativism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... e_Alliance
Peace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_flag#Rainbow_flag
the Jewish Autonomous Oblast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_th ... ous_Oblast
Noahidism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism

All kinds of reasons why someone puts up a rainbow flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_fl ... nbow_flags

Sassenach wrote:Wake me when they start trying to pass a law which forces this jeweller to give them their money back.

Exactly.