They aren’t cognitive hoops and I’m not jumping if I’m not consciously aware of it.
I think you’re implying that a hijab-wearing Kebab place necessarily opposes abortion. This could statistically be true, but I just don’t automatically think of someone in a hijab as a threat to my beliefs or our way of life. They’d have to put up a more specific sign before I think again about doing business with them.
Further, while the hijab has roots in what you describe, I suspect many wearers continue to wear it as a habit, tradition, or out of respect even if they don’t agree with the original purpose.
It’s different from someone having an obvious sign on their forehead.
Ok, so you are prosecuting “expression” crime. It’s still saying that people can express whatever they want, as long as it doesnt offend you. But it’s just intollerent bigotry they need to get over if they’re offended by something you do or say. Because your feelings are more of a priority because…um…well…actually, they arent.
No one is making you go into this restuarant with the tattooed server, that’s your choice. The problem is you dont rest until ensuring that person is no longer able to work anywhere.
If you express hatred for people for things that those people had no control over (skin color, for example), then your expressions should have real consequences in the real world. If you hate some people, why should those people ignore it?
You keep going back to the tattoo. I already agreed with you on the tattoo and the guy with the web domains.
No. You said you would not patronize a place that has an anti-abortion sign on the door. I translated that to a small business owner with a “Choose Life” license plate or a donation box for the local pregnancy resource center. You would not patronize those places - regardless of the nuance surrounding the abortion debate, correct?
Yet you give the benefit of the doubt to a middle eastern restaurant with hijab wearing employees.
Do you see now how it still seems inconsistent from my viewpoint based on what you’re saying?
Considering the survey results of muslim beliefs around the world, I would say the portion that fall into that category is quite small, like less than 10%. So that would mean that 90% of the time you patronize a muslim run place with hijab wearing employees, you are supporting people whose values you disagree with. Still need that “We don’t agree in women’s equality” sign?
So where do we still disagree then? My whole point from the very first reply about this topic was that the guy with the domains is bad for business, so the business let him go, even though he may have been a fine agent up until that point.
In the current climate, I view both the “choose life” license plate and the donation box to a “pregnancy resource center” as in direct opposition to where I stand. I don’t see any nuance there. Something called a “pregnancy resource center” sounds great, but based on what I’ve seen they’re squarely pro-life and don’t provide the resources that someone seeking an abortion may require. Unlike Planned Parenthood, for example, which provides all the pregnancy resources and choices.
We perceive these things differently – I see more nuance in some things than in others. I suppose this may seem inconsistent to you, even if it doesn’t seem inconsistent to me.
But we live in the USA, the land of the free and the home of the brave. I would guess that this number is higher here.
Because their hatred of you is no worse that your hatred of them. Except they arent imposing any consequences on you (besides the horror of your virginal eyes seeing something you dont like), while your hatred is imposing real consequences on them.
“Real consequences” should come when you really do something. Not because you tell someone what you think (or in this case, not even tell them anything).
How about a Holocaust survivor or a WWII soldier who fought the Axis? Do they have virginal eyes? Does the tattoo wearer impose consequences on them? Why can’t I (or you) empathize with them?
I disagree – a face tat like that is more telling than speech.
No. They get served a delicious meal like everyone else in the restaurant. I fail to understand how anyone could possibly know that such person is a Holocaust survivor, to even begin to impose any consequences on them?
I empathize with people who are treated differently just because of who/what they are. And here, you are the one treating someone differently just because of who/what they are. You’re just beating them to the punch, and proactively doing to them what you fear they might do to you. Making you at best a hypocrit.
What you fail to see is that the tattoo wearer does not need to know that they are serving a WWII survivor. It’s enough for the survivor to see the tattoo to be horrified.
I’m not treating someone differently because of what they are – nobody is born with a swastika tattoo on their forehead.
I honestly can’t believe I have to defend my position of wanting real life consequences for a person with a swastika on their forehead. Seems like there’s no convincing anyone, so let’s just be done with this subject.
I cant believe I have to defend what I’m defending, too. Of course you have the freedom to not patronize a restaurant with such an employee. But it’s also a gay person’s right to not patronize certain bakeries, yet them demanding to be served is celebrated. If it’s justice to force an anti-gay establishment to sell to a gay couple, why isnt it justice to force the obvious (per your interpretation of a tattoo) racist nazi to serve a black or jewish customer? Conversly, if your beliefs dictate that you refuse to patronize that restaurant because you object to what the employee is expressing, why dont your beliefs dictate that the gay couple refuse to patronize the bakery because they object to the bakery owner’s values?
All I’m looking for is some consistency, and not cherry picking a standard to impose based on what you declare to be “right”.
This is the crux of the disagreement on why it doesn’t make sense to force Jack Phillips to serve gay weddings. If no one were forced to serve anyone, then by all means, vote with your wallet and post negative reviews and hope masterpiece cakeshop goes out of business. But when you want to force them to serve all events AND vote with your wallet, all you are doing is telling other people that agree with masterpiece cakeshop they have to hide their beliefs. And that is actively harming the people that would like to have that information.
Imagine post masterpiece cakeshop, a man with similar views but no stomach for what Jack Phillips went through, opens up masterpeace cakeshop. A gay couple, assuming that the place has no animosity toward gay weddings, go there. The owner says to himself, “Ugh, I don’t want to participate, but I have to.” So he makes a mediocre cake, just good enough that he wouldn’t get a 1-2 star review, but bad enough they won’t recommend him to their gay friends. But what actually matters is that the couple gets a mediocre cake for their special day and is disappointed. Had they known that masterpeace wasn’t gay wedding friendly, they would have gone to one of the other dozen gay friendly bakeries in town and not been disappointed on their special day. The gays that sued jack phillips made it harder for every other gay couple to vote with their wallet in the future.
By forcing business owners to serve events they don’t want to, in the long run, you just end up taking useful information away from consumers. The guy with the nazi tattoo doesn’t exist. The guy with bigoted (in your viewpoint) views does, and he is smart enough not to hang a sign on his window. But he’s not nice enough to go out of his way for the type of people that want to shut his business down. If your goal is to get rid of those guys, your tactic of forcing them to serve everyone has backfired. The supreme court forcing them to serve gay weddings isn’t going to change their minds the same way a vaccine mandate isn’t going to force everyone to get a vaccine.
I never stated or disagreed with the bolded part. It’s totally fine to refuse to patronize the bakery.
But it’s also fine (and consistent) to protest the existence of both of these businesses.
The inconsistency you see is in the desired outcomes – in the case of the bakery I want their service, in the case of the restaurant I don’t. But really the point of both is to highlight and root out bigotry.
I agree with this, in principle. The problem is when THE LAW says otherwise. If the law says that a business must serve everyone, then the business must serve everyone. The masterpiece saga was a test of the law, and the result is that the law does not say what the plaintiffs thought it says.
Yes, the inconsistency in your desired outcomes. That’s exactly what I said. You want to force some beliefs onto society, while purging others (and purging the people who believe them) from society, based solely on how you perceive them.
That only serves your own personal ‘freedom’, not a free society. Believing you are right does not yield justice, it yields tyranny. This is exactly what Hitler attempted to do, the only difference being that you agree with the standards you are imposing.
But that’s actually a lie. People that disagree with Jack Phillips beliefs don’t want to patronize his bakery. They want to punish him for his beliefs. They didn’t take him to court so they could actually have his artistic creation at their wedding. Please don’t tell me you believe that.
But your logic is backwards. Yes we are the land of the free. That means we have one of the lowest rates of hijab wearing by observant muslims in the world. That means that if you actually see someone wearing one, they are MORE likely to espouse those beliefs than in a country where every muslim woman wears one.
I understand that you are opposed to people on the front lines fighting for laws restricting abortion. But that isn’t what pregnancy resource centers do. There is a lot less nuance in hijab wearing than there is in supporting pregnancy resource centers. If you would refuse to patronize a business that supports their local pregnancy resource center, would you also refused to patronize a business that raises money for the women’s health center at the local catholic hospital? If you say “I hope Bob’s Burgers goes out of business - that jerk supports a women’s health center that doesn’t perform abortions,” but you also say, “Let’s go eat at Muhammed’s Kebabs - sure I see his wife and daughter there in hijabs, but they probably agree with the progressive left’s view of women’s rights too,” you are so steeped in cognitive dissonance and twisted leftist logic that there is no hope you’ll ever be consistent on anything that might go against leftist orthodoxy.
Agreed. As I was writing that I was thinking about the appearance – it appears that they want the service, vs the other case where the service would be unwanted. The actual point of both is to highlight and root out bigotry.
That is not my conclusion. Maybe they’re new here. Maybe they just don’t want to break old habits. It doesn’t mean that their beliefs have not been affected.
Maybe for some. I’ve seen at least one documentary where such “centers” steered clients in the obviously wrong direction and straight up lied about the options and intentionally caused delays (which then make abortion even more difficult to obtain).
I might, but it would not be because they don’t perform abortions, it would be only if they lie to women to prevent them from obtaining an abortion elsewhere.
Our personal decisions are based on our personal knowledge and experience, yeah? I can see why you think my positions seem inconsistent, but they do not cause me any discomfort (which I think is necessary for cognitive dissonance) nor do I think they’re inconsistent. Some things are more obvious than others, so it’s all taken into consideration before a decision is made. We’re discussing hypotheticals here anyway, in reality it’s extremely rare for me to come across either scenario in real life (especially the one you proposed – most often I see businesses asking for donations to the various children’s or cancer hospitals, not controversial).
You’ve just described every social and political movement in history. But that in this case it leads to tyranny and not justice is, like, your opinion, man. And believing that you’re right doesn’t make you right.
I’ve seen that documentary too. There are anywhere from 2,500 to 4,000 pro-life pregnancy resource centers in the country. With that many, you are going to get some that have the occasional employee/volunteer that might use some tactics that don’t line up with what they should be doing. But I can tell you from personal experience, that pregnancy resource centers are not in the business of lying to women about their unborn children. They are never going to steer a mother towards abortion and don’t offer them as a “choice,” but they don’t set out to accomplish their mission by lying and delaying things either. Show me a woman that went to a pregnancy resource center for an abortion and still thought after 5 minutes of asking for one that she is going to get one there, I’ll show you a woman that is straight up lying.
I’m kinda surprised you would use documentaries about the terrible tactics used by pregnancy resource centers as support for your argument considering what’s out there about the alternative. I’ve seen documentaries where abortion clinics have lied to women, tried to get top dollar for fetus organs, and straight up committed murder and covered it up. Yet I still recognize the nuance involved in someone supporting their local pro-choice women’s health center and that it doesn’t necessarily mean they want more abortions and elective abortion legalized up to the point of birth. How come you can’t see that for people that support pro-life pregnancy resource centers?
If they’re new here and that’s the only reason why they are still wearing a hijab, then that tells me the “land of the free” mentality hasn’t quite taken hold yet. Not exactly support for your claim. Keep jumping through those hoops to defend a religion where a husband could punish his wife if she got an abortion without his permission while at the same time supporting “women’s reproductive rights.” You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
It’s in the name. In this environment, “pro-life” = “anti-chioce”.
My cake is delicious and moist. I do not defend a religion, only giving the benefit of the doubt to some of its adherents in some cases as I specifically described.
Yes, by becoming a bigot yourself. As I said way back near the beginning, you’re just afraid of what that person might do, so you make sure to do it to them first.
Every political movement where this has occured resulted in a government overthrow. The lack of that tyrany is why the USA has sustained for 2 and a half centuries - no one’s opinions have been inherently more valid than anyone else’s.
The social movements, at least the ones that were successful, were about equality within society. Not purging those deemed undesirable from society.
The civil war was to set the slaves free, is was not about lynching the slave owners. Now, everyone is out for (metaphorical) blood any time someone disagrees with them.