kengr: (Default)
The "pup" in the comics below is Florence a Bowman's Wolf (uplifted wolf species). She's as intelligent as a human.

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3100/fc03018.htm
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3100/fc03019.htm
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3100/fc03020.htm
http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm
(after thursday the above will get the wrong strip, try http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3100/fc03021.htm)

I agree with Chris's dad. Especially given that it's a mobility device *with communications*. Killing the comms when there's a fault in the drive system is an *insanely* stupid decision.

What stupid design decisions have *you* had to deal with?
kengr: (I'm one of them)
(this is an edited version of a comment I made on one of Fayanora's posts a few years back. Figured it deserved wider distribution:

"There’s a form of mental torture called “gaslighting,” its name taken from a play in which a man..." http://t.co/bMtUp2LccQ

Abuse survivors deal with this a lot, and even more so when they are still being abused.

It's due to a major disconnect most folks have.

They (wrongly) believe that *intent* matters. So if it wasn't intended as abuse, it's not actually abusive.

But in reality, intent *doesn't* matter. You can do something with the best of intentions and still hurt someone if they are wired that way.

A good example is allergies. I don't care *how* much care and love you put into that dish of X. If I'm allergic to something in it, you'll put me in the hospital (or the morgue) by making me eat it.

Same thing applies to abusive behavior. Even the racial stuff and GLBT stuff.

But people will fight bitterly to avoid acknowledging this. Because if they do, it means they have to accept several things that they don't want to.

That good intentions don't matter. That other people are not like them, and thus don't react like they do. And worst of all, that being different that way is *not* wrong.

And that last is why so many reactions to getting called on stuff boil down to "you're doing this just to be contrary" (because they *literally* can't conceive of someone actually being/thinking "that" way)

I blame the golden rule for a lot of this. It *inherently assumes* that other people are just like you. The allergy example I used above points out the problems with that.

And gee, ever notice how many people don't *really* believe that allergies exist, they think that they are just people being unreasonably "picky".

Funny how that looks like the folks who claim that they aren't being insensitive/abusive.

The version of the "golden rule" used in metalaw works better but people really hate it:

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

People immediately jump to "but they can abuse that for all sorts of things". Which says a lot about how they think...
kengr: (idiot-free)
On Criminal Minds tonight they they had someone poisoning people with an "irradiated poison".

I was willing to accept that, though it was kinda silly. and it apparently *swiftly* (like within a couple of minutes) induced symptoms of a heart attack. Then, besides radiation poisoning it was cause multiple organ failures. The radiation was short half-life so it was "harmless" with in a day or two.

Turns out the perp had been stealing the stuff for six years or so from various hospitals radio-medicine units.

Which just plain *doesn't work*.

If it has that short a half-life it'd not be capable of causing radiation poisoning within *days* after it was stolen.

Also, nothing these used for radio-medicine is *remotely* that toxic. Nor would it do the "induce a heart attack" bit.

Also, they evacuated a neighborhood because the perp had dumped some down a sink. Yet at the same time, the perp who *worked* with this stuff and thus knew how to safely handle it, carried a container around in her *pocket*

Basically, if it can be safely carried in a pocket, even for a short time, it winding up in the sewer isn't a big deal.

So, essentially, the writers did *no* research.

Bullying

Feb. 12th, 2017 06:51 pm
kengr: (Default)
Over on Facebook a friend shared a post that used this image:

A lot of folks agreed. But a lot disagreed, saying that it amounted to victim blaming.

My comments (plus more I didn't have room for)

The big problem with this sentiment is that it doesn't *work*. Attempting to defend myself from bullies in grade school got me in trouble with the teachers *and* with my mom when I got home. I was pyhsically incapable of outrunning the bullies. And even if I'd known some sort of self-defense 3 on one odds aren't beatable unless you are very good (or using tactics that would get you in *real* trouble.

Two memes that need to die:
"sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
Words can cause more lasting damage than a physical beating.

"it takes two to make a fight"
Guess what, if the bully wants a fight all refusing to fight will get you is a beating.

Being taught something about self-defense is good. But it can only help so much. And as noted, it's victim blaming.

Teachers need to quit with the "both parties are equally guilty" with regards to fights. They also need to be *paying attention* during recess so that it *isn't* a case of "we didn't see it so we can't take anyone's word about who started it".

They need to scrap the "I don't care what he said/did that's no justification for hitting him" And remember that what was said/done may not have been the proximate cause, but rather the most recent in an ongoing series of abuses that finally became intolerable.

Yeah, taking your eraser or calling you a name should be a reason to hit him. But if he's been doing that sort of thing several times a day for *weeks*? That's a very different story.

Oh yeah, forbid "keep away". It's not a game for the victim.

One person posted this picture in reponse:


It's better but it still has the "bullying will always be with us" idea. That may be true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce it as much as possible.
kengr: (he is us)
44 years ago...
Dec 14, 1972. At 2:54 pm PST, the last humans departed from the lunar surface.

And the only folks who look likely to try again soon are the Chinese.
kengr: (seperation of church & hate)
I'm sure you recall akll the stuff in the news about members of various sects destroying altars, desecrating temples, and so forth.

That sort of thing always makes the news....

Or does it?

Yeah, the Taliban going after Buddhist temples made the news. So has ISIS destroying archeological stuff.

And, of course folks setting fires or vandalizing Christian Churches and Jewish ones makes the news (though usually local.

But does *this* make the news?

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Destroy-Ancient-Indigenous-Temple-in-Mexico-20160628-0009.html

http://www.criteriohidalgo.com/noticias/hidalgo-ujul/limitan-indigenas-acceso-a-santuario-en-san-bartolo

"Oh, but that was in another country" I hear you say.

How about mosques getting defaced in the US, that barely makes the news.

And then there are things like the Wiccan site on a US military base, properly cleared with command, etc that got majorly vandalized a few years back. They could barely get the MPs to take a look at the damage, much less investigate. They had to file suit.

It's like terrorism. If it's a muslim, he must have been radilcalized, yadda, yadda. If it's a Christian he must be mentally ill.

Guuys, it's long past time to quit avoiding it. Christians *can* be terrorists, or vandalize things belong to other faith. And do so *because* they are "Christians".

I don't care *what* your religion is. But there are rules you should have to follow if you want to be part of Western Civilization:

1. do not try to force others to live according to your faith. This includes trying to pass laws that impose your religion's morality on the rest of us.

2. Treat members of other religions the way you'd want them to treat you. That means don't try to "push" your beliefs on them unless you'd approve of them pushing *their* beliefs on *you* them same way. Among other things, this means taking "No, I'm not interested" as the signal to quit talking and go find someone else to "testify" to.

These are the biggies, but there are various others that follow from them if you give it even a little thought.

One corrolary of sorts I'll note. If you live in a place that's predominantly of one faith (or set of related faiths) it's utterly *stupid* to think that should be trying to convey the basic (shared) tenets to your fellow countrymen to get them to convert. They've grown up surroiunded by it. You aren't special snowflake who will miraclulously make them convert *this* time.

If you feel the need to do *that* sort of preaching, become a missionary.

Oh yeah, do remember to check the laws of the country you plan to be a missionary in. There are a number of countries where acting the way you do *here* while *there* will get you thrown in jail or worse.

As an example, converting from Islam to anything else is a major heresy, and (as I recall) carries the death penalty (according to the Koran?) So can you guess what sort of reception you'll get trying to convert Muslims to Christianity will get?

If you want to be free to follow your religion, you have to let others follow theirs. Claims of "but we're right and they're *wrrong*" don't cut it, because they can say the exact same thing.

God knows. people don't.
kengr: (Default)
Reputedly the Caliph Omar said (regarding the books in the Library of Alexandria):

"they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."

He's not alone. Many Christians have said similar things to justify book burnings and other things. Of course they referred to the Bible.

My response?

What about things your holy book remains silent on? What of the best way to build a bridge, a ship, building? What of mathematics and engineering?

And what of medicine beyond the small bits mentioned in passing?

And whether books agree or disagree with your holy book is a matter that requires thought. Perhaps you are misreading the book, or your holy book.

If the books agree they may suggest other things that aren't covered.

If they disagree, you can can use them as an example to explain to your fellows. Not by ranting against them blindly. But by showing how and *why* they are wrong.

God gave us brains to *use* them.

anxiety

Apr. 24th, 2016 02:35 am
kengr: (Default)
I came across this quote in someone's post:

Anxiety is practising failure in advance. Anxiety is needless and imaginary. It’s fear about fear, fear that means nothing.

Bullshit.

Anxiety is *learned response*. You get it because you been "trained" to fear failure (or other things) *because* in the past bad things have happened in similar situations. and do so with enough consistency to "train in" the response.

It's a conditioned reflex, and no more "imaginary" than any other.

It's not "practicing failure". It's the fight/flight response getting triggered by *danger*.

Try telling someone who has anxiety because of past abuse (physical or emotional) that their anxiety is imaginary or means nothing. and you be yet another abusive jerk.

Instead, you have to treat it like a phobia. Expose them to small, controlled version of the anxiety inducing situations. As they learn that bad things don't necessarily happen, you can expose them to "bigger" triggers. And less controlled situations.

But you need to introduce the "less controlled ones very carefully.

At this level the same rules that apply to things like dog training apply. If one out of ten situations goes wrong, it weakens or invalidates the lesson. Meaning you have to start all over.

Remember, they learned to be anxious over dozens, if not hundreds of events that *hurt* in some way. They aren't going to learn to not expect the pain after a small number of events where it doesn't happen.

BTW, just like training a dog, you gotta reward "good" behavior. So, for example, ripping into a kid for getting stuff wrong, but never praising them for getting stuff right (and yes, treating getting it right as "expected" and thus not worthy of any special notice counts) is like to make them very anxious about that behavior and not willing to put in any more effort than it takes to avoid getting yelled at (or worse).
kengr: (Default)
About that Mississippi "religious protection" bill. This section is going to give some lawyers *lots* of fun.

that “male” and “female” refer to someone’s “immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

Ah yes, ignorance of biology strikes again.

Sex is *subjectively* determined by doctors at time of birth. There are "standards" for making the determination, but they aren't always followed.

And even when they are followed they are pretty damned arbitrary. Stuff like length of penis/clitoris.

Genetic testing is rarely done on newborns. When it is, it's because genetic problems are suspected *or* because doctors are having trouble figuring out what sex the baby is.

So a lot of intersex babies *don't* get IDed at birth. Anybody with AIS/CAIS for example. Or guevedoces.

There aren't just two sexes even if the public (and most doctors) would like to believe there are.

And gender is even *more* complicated.

Some day we are going to have to get laws put in place recognizing the *spectrums* of sex & gender. Because that's what it's going to take to end this sort of nonsense.

No Fly List

Dec. 6th, 2015 05:26 pm
kengr: (Default)
Ok, first it was Hillary Clinton, and now it's President Obama calling to deny gun sales to people on the No Fly list.

It may *sound* like a good idea. Unfortunately, unless things have changed recently, the No Fly list is *notorious* for having major errors. People with the same name as suspects, people who got put on it for stupid reasons or because prejudice.

Then add in the fact that getting your name off the list is practically impossible, because there's *no* established means for getting your inclusion reviewed and corrected.

If they want to make it a "can't buy" list, then the legislation should also set forth the requirement that you be able to challenge your inclusion on the list in court. And establish better guidelines for adding people to it. Including penalties for the people who put people on it who shouldn't be on it.

If they don't put in these *needed* reforms in the list, then they've got no business extending the things that it can be used to deny people. (mind you they shouldn't be using it *now* due to these same defects)
kengr: (antenna girl)
Over on [livejournal.com profile] alex_antonin's tumblr, he reposted something from someone else.

https://t.co/qOQN93V2Sg

It's about a image being posted by Autism Canada.



It may look fine at first glance.

But when you stop and think about it, it's an example of an all too common with campaigns "for" people with various disabilities.

It's not actually about the people with the disability. It's about the *non*-disabled.

In this case, it's holding them up as an "inspiration". It's about *us* felling good" for "helping" *them*.

Other examples are all the comments about how "brave" people with disabilities are, or how hard their lives are.

They disabled aren't being treated as real people with real problems, but as props for getting an effect.

Thus the phrase "inspiration porn".

In this particular case, it's doubly bad in that by using the phrase "how good we can be" it encourages the people without the disability to "be good" to the people with it.

Why is that bad? Because it encourages people to use their own judgment as to what is "good" for the disabled person.

This almost never goes well. Most blind people have horror stories about people offering unasked-for "help". I know a couple who have been *injured* when some idiot grabbed them to try to steer them away from a hazard they were well aware of (in one case, the attempt to "help" him avoid falling into an excavation next to the sidewalk actually resulted in him falling into it).

With autistics, consider that many of the attempts to "help" them use methods that the ASPCA won't allow to be used in training *animals*. But because it's professional psychologists trying to make them "act norrmal" most non-autistics shrug it off as "they know what they are doing" or "they need to learn to 'act normal'".

Here's an example that may get thru to some people. I've got asthma. As such, I *could* do most of the stuff in PE. But things like running distances were very difficult What was easy of merely "a bit difficult" for non-asthmatics was very, very hard for me, if not impossible.

Using the "logic" used in treating "low functioning" autistics, the PE teachers should have used electric shocks, or withholding food, etc as means to get me to be a better runner.
kengr: (antenna girl)
An item on the local news the other night caught my attention. Seems we had 145 shootings in Portland this year.

And most weren't gang related or while committing a crime (other than the shooting itself being a crime). And almost all were by young men in their teens and twenties.

What was the reason? According to the expert they interviewed it's because these young men have no skills in conflict resolution. They get upset with someone, and if they have a weapon, that's their idea of a solution.

This fits *so* well with a lot of stuff. Because if you think about it, guys that don't have guns will resort to some other weapon. To their fists if that's all they have.
Read more... )
kengr: (antenna girl)
The Pope's comments about public officials having the right to be conscientious objectors on religious grounds has been used to defend Kim Davis and others (though not by him).

People seem to forget something. Conscientious objectors to military service have a choice of going to jail, or being put in a job that doesn't have them doing the things they object to.

It does *not* get the rules of the military or their job changed to suit them.

Kim Davis claims that status, but doesn't think she should go to jail, and she wants the duties of her job changed.

Sorry, those aren't the choices.

The ones she *actually* has, under the law are:

1. let her office issue licenses that use the same *unaltered* form as the rest of Kentucky, with her name in the blanks where it belongs.
2. step down from her office, she can go back to just being one of the deputy clerks (with the cut in pay and authority) and she can then not issue licenses as long as she doesn't stop the *other* clerks from issuing them.
3. quit
4. go to jail (again) for contempt of court.

My stance on religious freedom is that you have an absolute right to practice your faith. Right up to the point where you are trying to make *others* behave the way your faith dictates. At that point you are violating *their* religious freedom.

I can only hope that some day the Supreme Court can declare something similar rather than dancing around the issue. Hobby Lobby was a bad decision.

BTW, they are in trouble again...

Trans woman wins decision against Hobby Lobby

They haven't complied with the decision yet, either.
kengr: (antenna girl)
The Tennessse state legislature is really reaching.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/17/lawmakers-file-tennessee-natural-marriage-defense-act/32570645/

This is a ploy that's been tried before on other issues. Congress has even tried it a time or two.

I'm not aware of any of the attempts actually getting passed into law though.

What makes this *really* stupid is that these are the exact same people who try to claim that the Supreme Court's decision in favor of same-sex marriage is the court usurping legislative authority.

This is a blatant attempt for the legislative branch to usurp judicial authority.

The way thing work is that legislative branch makes laws.

The executive branch "executes" the laws.

The judicial branch rules on whether they are valid and in case of dispute, on what they mean. Not that "valid" explicitly includes the authority to decide if a law (or the way it is being enforced) violates the constitution.

If the courts rule that a law is unconstitutional, or for that matter, that it *is* constitutional, that's it. Game over Only way that'll change is if (somewhere years down that road) a new case cause the judicial branch to reconsider things.

But legislators (including Congress) far too often refuse to admit this, and try passing new laws that are worded differently, but do essentially the same thing. For example all the attempts over the last 40 years to restrict what adults can access online in the name of "protecting children".

I almost hope this *does* pass. Just so the Supreme Court can make a ruling stating that legislature (and Congress) do not have the power too say that the courts can't rule on things.


Me, I'd like to see a law making trying to pass a law that is unconstitutional grounds for removal from office. It'd have to be worded carefully, because sometimes there *are* genuine disagreements. But far too often, legislators *know* that what they are trying to do is unconstitutional, and are hoping the courts won't get around to it.
kengr: (Default)
A lot of talk is going around about people's religious beliefs being denied by various laws.

I'm sorry, but in none of these cases are their beliefs or their right to express them being denied.

Instead, their right to *inflict* those beliefs on other people in the course of their job is being denied. That's a very different thing.

Kim Davis (the county clerk in Rowan county, Kentucky who just got jailed)? She took an oath to carry out the duties of her office. When those duties conflicted with her beliefs, she wanted to be able to keep the job and at the sdame time *not* do the duties she disagreed with.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. She could have issued the licenses, but that conflicts with her beliefs. Fine

She could have resigned the job and protested the issuing of licenses by whoever replaced her.

But she chose to keep the job (and the $80,000 a year salary) and *not* carry out a duty of the job. Even after a federal judge ordered her to. So now she is in jail. That's the way it works.

You either follow the law, or you do your time. As I've commented in the past, many people these days seem to forget that civil disobedience *is* breaking the law and that you should be prepared to take the consequences. You don't get to say you shouldn't *have* consequences.

Same goes for all the other folks trying to play games with marriage equality.

The businesses that don't want to serve gay customers in places where that's a violation of antidiscrimination laws. They can either serve everyone equally, or they can close the business. Or they can deal with the legal penalties. Those are the choices.

And it's *not* discrimination against their beliefs. Again, it's that we have these laws for a reason, and it's so you can't treat certain types of people as second class citizens. You are free to *nelieve* that they are inferior, sinful, or whatever. And to talk about your beliefs. But you are required to treat them like anybody else if that's your job or your business.
kengr: (Default)
I got an email the other day from my cable internet provider (which I will not name because last time I diod I got a reply to my post from one of their people, which indicates that they are scanning public posts here)

Anyway, it said my modem needed to be upgraded as my current one wasn't capable of the higher speeds they now offer.Not sure if it'll make an actual difference as I've got the cheapest plan, but it was a free upgrade so what the heck.

Ity arrived monday. Which was nice fast service (I think I ordered itThursday).

There were some good things. It runs off AC directly, so there's no power brick to get in the way.It has built-in wi-fi. B/GN in fact. It has support for two phone lines (not that I'm ever going to order phone service from them. Has a bult-in battery backup (supposedly just for the phone service, but we'll see.)

And it has 4 ethernet ports. The old one had only 1. Nothing in the enclosed material said what speeds were supported though.

I was able to download a better user guide online that told me it supported 10/100/1000. Somethiung that *really* should have been in the material. If they are going to menntion that it supports B/G/N wifi, you'd think they'd mention hat it supported gigabit ethernet.

Obviously, there had to be a built-in router. This looked good, as I need to update my existing standalone router to one that supports gigabt, as I've got a bunch of stuff (including a network drive) that use it.

I found the login screen easily. Which was *identical* to the user login screen for the cable companies website. Since there was no mention of router stiuff in the docs, much less a password, I tried my ID and password from the cable company. Didn't work.

I finally gave up and plugged my existing router into it.

That got me to the activation screen. And aactivation seemed to go ok. The laptop I'd plugged in directly went thru ok.

I seemed to be able to access the web from my main system which was connected to the router. pinging various sites worked. Activation screen came up again. I entered the info.

Then I finished reading a chapter in an online novel I was reading. Went to go to next chapter. Back to the activation screen.

After going thru this several times, I call suupport. I was not happy that the first suggested solution was to reset the *computer. When I pointed out that it was hooked up thru a router, he backed doewn and had me dioconect and power down the router (which I'd already done when first hooking things up. *sigh*

Had to leave it off and disconnected for several minutes. Not mere;ly while the varous lights on the modem did their remote reset thing, but fgor several minutes after. At last I had things working again.

I asked about the router setup in the modem. Turns out that the ologibn/password were "admin" and :"password". Again, not in the docs.

I checked iy out later. This is the *dumbest* router I've ever seen. It is set to 10.0.0.1. Ok, that's a valid LAN address. But it's set for a 256 address LAN. Which is *not* what 10.x.x.x is supposed to be used for. That's what the 192.168.x.x ranges are for.

The base address for the LAN is *not* configurable. It is not possible to reserve IP addresses based on MAC addresses. Not on the wired or wireless side. Mind you are lot of low end routers have that last one.

The SSID for the wireless is set to HOME-xxxx where xxxx is the last 4 digits of the MAC address of the modem. Not changeable. The security and password are not configurable.

In fact the only things that are configurable seem to be:

The admin password, and under "advanced" you can set up port mapping. That's it.

Well, there's a parental control section I haven't checked.

So unless I want to reconfigure several systems, I can't hook up to the modem except thru a router that is more capable. Also can't use the wifi for the same reason.

So I guess I still need to get that gigabit router.

The one "good" thing is that I can set up a system hooked directly to the modem and have it be pretty damn isolated from the rest of my systems. I actually may have a use for that, but still.
kengr: (Default)
The news has been coveruing this bit about the Portland Business Alliance putting up an online petition asking the city to do something about all the homeless (including comments about trying harder to enforce laws against camping and other things (ie "get them out of sight"))

The mayor(?) responded asking just where they were supposed to get the money?

The PBA response "we're not experts in fund raising"

I call bullshit.

That's not a response, that's an attempt to dodge the issue.
kengr: (Default)
http://t.co/HbA4ZSKyIP

Yes. some people are fat. Some are *way* above a healthy weight. Others are "just overweight (and sometimes because doctors *ignored* important symptoms because they were overweight, which lead o *more* weight gain before the symptoms of what was *causing* the weight gain (not over eating or under exercising) became impossible to ignore)

So now we have people *starving* babies (and children) because they think that being "chubby" is *wrong* at their ages.

Unless you are someone's doctor, don't go making judgments about their weight. *Especially* don't assume it's because they don't exercise or eat too much.
Read more... )
kengr: (Default)
the fact that donald trump can make a lot of money inspires me - if he can do it, how hard could it be

An important but oft overlooked point regarding all these rich people.

How much money did they *start* with? Often their money (or their family's money) was far higher than a "normal" person would have. That's not "merely" a "step up" it's a *huge* advantage.

The resources you have to start with influences the results in a *very* non-linear manner. 10 times the starting resources doesn't give you 10 times the results. More like 100 times.

Another important point is "who did they know?" What sort of contacts did they have from family, friends, school, etc. This is another force multiplier.

If you "know somebody" you aren't just more likely to get a job. You are more likely to get a *good* job (as opposed to an "entry level" job that's essentially dead end.

And this, btw, is why upper middle class types think "get a job" is a reasonable thing to tell somebody. Because they *do* have starting resources and contacts (or did when *they* were entering the work force).

"middle" midle class folks think this too. Many of them have gotten a rude shock when they got dumped back into the job market and found out that they no longer have the contacts that got them a good job when they were young.
kengr: (antenna girl)
Ok, the owners of that former bakery in Gresham OR got the final judgement for their refusal to serve a lesbian couple.

It's $130,000 or so.

A lot of folks including one annoying local radio/TV commentator keep making noises about how out of line this is compared with things like speeding tickets.

They miss the fact that it's not that the couple didn't get their wedding cake. It's that they didn't get it BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY.

The owners are vowing to appeal, and making comments about how it's a violation of their first amendment rights.

Sorry, this is another thing much like the civil disobedience bit I went into yesterday.

The first amendment says you have freedom of speech. It does *not* say that you can't get into trouble for what you say or do.

They are perfectly free to make comments about how they disapprove of "gay marriage". and they are free to claim it's part of their religion.

What they are *not* free to do is run a business and then discriminate against people for being gay.

Don't think that's right? What would you say if they'd refused to make a cake for an inter-racial couple. Or a black couple?

It's the *exact same thing*.

Also, they *could* have stayed in business and simply quit making wedding cakes for *anybody*.

As a person providing a service to the public, you are *not* allowed to refuse service because someone belongs to a group covered by anti-discrimination laws. Period.

Note: that doesn't mean you can't refuse service to a member of one of those groups. You just can do it *because* they belong to the group.

Refuse someone for being a woman, no. Refuse her because she's an arrogant pain-in-the-ass, no problem.

Also, just consider where allowing people to refuse service based on their religious beliefs goes. Christian Scientists (and members of some other churches, including one notorious local one) could refuse to sell medicine or to provide medical services.

Oh wait, some "Christians" do that already with regards to birth control, the morning after pill and other things. :-(

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Otherwise the libel & slander laws wouldn't exist. Not would "inciting to riot".

Freedom of religion isn't a get out of jail free card either. You are free to live your life according to your beliefs. You are *not* free to try to force others to conform to your beliefs. Which is what those business owners are doing.

If your beliefs preclude "assisting" with some things, then you'd best not have a job where that could come up.

ps. The owners closed the bakery a couple years ago but are apparently still selling stuff from their house. That's skirting things, but as long as they do it in a way that they aren't serving "the public" but can claim it's "friends" they should be ok.

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     1 2
3456789
101112 1314 15 16
1718 192021 2223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 08:05 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios