Religious freedom, political correctness, and the culture of outrage

[The Brain]

lol@those

[Barrister]

Everybody discriminates against me here in Languish.

You all make fun of my ethnicity, national origin, religion, political beliefs, accent, food preference, beer preference, female appearance preference, education level, conspiracy theory preference, etc, etc, etc.

Underlined are not enumerated grounds.

[Ideologue]

But educational level is?  Do I detect a sense of subconscious shame at your inferior law degree?

[Barrister]

But educational level is?  Do I detect a sense of subconscious shame at your inferior law degree?

My law degree has given me a successful 14 year legal career so far.

But you're right - educational level is not an enumerated ground.

[Ideologue]

I was just kidding.

[The Brain]

I was just kidding.

/Hitler

[Eddie Teach]

Everybody discriminates against me here in Languish.

You all make fun of my ethnicity, national origin, religion, political beliefs, accent, food preference, beer preference, female appearance preference, education level, conspiracy theory preference, etc, etc, etc.

Well, we make fun of the other hispanics, Jews, and conservatives too.

[Razgovory]

In the US it applies to the public accommodation (i.e. the store), not the individual.  Obviously, the storekeeper is answerable to the store, so the effect (in cases of public accommodations only) is the same.  If I am operating a booth at a flea market, I can discriminate as I please (though the operator of the flea market cannot).

That sounded wrong so I looked it up.  Sure enough it is wrong. Title II section 203 expressly states that obligations also extend to individuals.  Further section 204 provides a remedy if "any person" violates the obligations in section 203.

Now who are you tell Grumber he can't do your job?

[grumbler]

Individuals cannot discriminate when they are basically acting as an authority within a public accommodation. This would include the owner/sole proprietor or one of his employees. It is actually individualized in that aspects of this can result in criminal charges. If you kick someone's assistance animal out of a store you can actually be charged criminally, it's not just a civil fine.

Are you sure about that?  I've only ever seen reference to civil fines for violations.

Edit:  Under federal law, of course.  State laws vary.

[crazy canuck]

Individuals cannot discriminate when they are basically acting as an authority within a public accommodation. This would include the owner/sole proprietor or one of his employees. It is actually individualized in that aspects of this can result in criminal charges. If you kick someone's assistance animal out of a store you can actually be charged criminally, it's not just a civil fine.

Are you sure about that?  I've only ever seen reference to civil fines for violations.

I cited you chapter and section 

It is somewhat disconcerting that a teacher doesnt understand that individuals have these obligations.

[grumbler]

Individuals cannot discriminate when they are basically acting as an authority within a public accommodation. This would include the owner/sole proprietor or one of his employees. It is actually individualized in that aspects of this can result in criminal charges. If you kick someone's assistance animal out of a store you can actually be charged criminally, it's not just a civil fine.

Are you sure about that?  I've only ever seen reference to civil fines for violations.

I cited you chapter and section 

I found the chapter and section you mentioned (and concede that it does mention persons) and will even give you a link to find if there are any mentions UNDER FEDERAL LAW) to criminal procedings: http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

The money quotes:

Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance.

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title

Go ahead and find the criminal penalties under federal law. 

[Sheilbh]

I honestly don't see a regression.  Do you guys really see a regression?  In the 1950s, I'd probably literally be in gaol for my political opinions.

Yeah. I'm with you. This is rambling though, so you may want to skip. And I'd say I don't think political correctness is the current culture of outrage in the UK. I think we're still in that Brass Eye episode about paedophilia.

On political correctness I don't think much of this is new either. I think what has perhaps happened is that it's new groups and new types of people who are being 'protected' and what we're trying to 'protect' people from has changed. So Mary Whitehouse and Malcolm Muggeridge were very offended and outraged, on behalf of the nation's children, by poems published in the Gay Men's Press. A publishing house read by very few children and whose only middle-aged female and straight male clients were Mary Whitehouse and Malcolm Muggeridge. Similarly presenting a gay man as a normal person would offend them as damaging morality, while it'd be an advance for PC.

The goal of the outraged is always to make better people and once that meant adhering to a certain moral code and for some it still does. So we needed to protect children and everyone else from certain political views, from sex, from some violence. All of that could be done while still having minstrel shows and homophobic or misogynist comics on national prime time TV. I think the view has shifted and we're not trying to make people more moral but more politically evolved. I always see political correctness as an attempt to speed up evolution in that sense. I am less bigoted than my parents who are less bigoted than their parents. The achievement of political correctness is that unlike them it's natural for me, while for people from the forties and sixties they had to make conscious choices to be less bigoted.

With political correctness I always think of that Milan Kundera line, 'man proceeds in the fog. In the fog we are free, but it is the freedom of a person in fog. Yet when he looks back to judge people from the past, he sees no fog on their path. From his present, which was their far-away future, their path looks perfectly clear to him, good visibility all the way. Looking back, he sees the path, he sees the people proceeding, he sees their mistakes, but he doesn't see the fog.'

But from a distance PC does seem several levels more insane in the US. Also I think the problem with religion and political correctness is that they're different. Fundamentally it's about noone being ashamed of what they're born and what they are and noone should be held back by it. It's about trying to skip the circuits so we can just be people. Religion it seems to me is fundamentally asserting a difference. Now if you then proceed to say we'll respect each other's differences and treat each other the same then that's fine I'm not sure that's always the case.

To take the example of adoption the politically correct impulse is to say well all people who are fit should be able to adopt regardless of sexuality or religion. The Catholic Church closed their adoption agencies rather than allow gay adoption. Similarly Muslim groups have argued that putting a Muslim child with non-Muslim parents is an abuse of their human rights and a sort of right to heritage. They may use the same language and the same tactics - but they're fundamentally different arguments. It's not that dissimilar from the way that politically correct campaigns have copied the tactics of, say, Mary Whitehouse for a different purpose.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Individuals cannot discriminate when they are basically acting as an authority within a public accommodation. This would include the owner/sole proprietor or one of his employees. It is actually individualized in that aspects of this can result in criminal charges. If you kick someone's assistance animal out of a store you can actually be charged criminally, it's not just a civil fine.

Are you sure about that?  I've only ever seen reference to civil fines for violations.

Edit:  Under federal law, of course.  State laws vary.

For your previous hypothetical about a flea market vendor, I don't believe there would be criminal penalties. But yeah, for stuff like ADA violations where you refuse a service animal on a business premise that is definitely a criminal offense--although some consider the ADA to be part of civil rights law and some wouldn't.

For regular civil rights law there are definitely criminal portions, but not in the flea market type scenario you described. But like conspiring to deny someone their right to vote through intimidation is a 10 year sentence, a lot of the KKK guys in the 60s who got sent away were done in by that portion of the statute (it wasn't a large number of persons in total, though.)

[grumbler]

Individuals cannot discriminate when they are basically acting as an authority within a public accommodation. This would include the owner/sole proprietor or one of his employees. It is actually individualized in that aspects of this can result in criminal charges. If you kick someone's assistance animal out of a store you can actually be charged criminally, it's not just a civil fine.

Are you sure about that?  I've only ever seen reference to civil fines for violations.

Edit:  Under federal law, of course.  State laws vary.

For your previous hypothetical about a flea market vendor, I don't believe there would be criminal penalties. But yeah, for stuff like ADA violations where you refuse a service animal on a business premise that is definitely a criminal offense--although some consider the ADA to be part of civil rights law and some wouldn't.

For regular civil rights law there are definitely criminal portions, but not in the flea market type scenario you described. But like conspiring to deny someone their right to vote through intimidation is a 10 year sentence, a lot of the KKK guys in the 60s who got sent away were done in by that portion of the statute (it wasn't a large number of persons in total, though.)

Yeah, conspiracy is criminal law. We were just talking about slightly different things, not disagreeing.

[Siege]

Shelf, you are assuming bigotry is an artificial negative trait, while there might be some to the argument that bigotry is a evolutionary self-defense mechanism.

The evolutionary argument also maintain that with the appearance of globalization and the "global village", socio-economical evolution will completely eliminate bigotry within 1 or 2 generations, because now bigotry has become a regressive trait lowering the chances of success for the people that still have this trait.