Religious freedom, political correctness, and the culture of outrage

[crazy canuck]

Go ahead and find the criminal penalties under federal law. 

The strawman of all strawmen?  Perhaps.  No one suggested there was a criminal sanction.  We were talking about Human Rights laws (in your country you seem to refer to them as Civil Rights laws) preventing discrimination.  You said those laws dont apply to individuals.  You were wrong.

[grumbler]

Go ahead and find the criminal penalties under federal law. 

The strawman of all strawmen?  Perhaps.  No one suggested there was a criminal sanction.  We were talking about Human Rights laws (in your country you seem to refer to them as Civil Rights laws) preventing discrimination.  You said those laws dont apply to individuals.  You were wrong.

So, when you quoted me asking Otto if he was sure that discrimination laws held criminal penalties, and said that "I cited you chapter and section," you didn't mean that you were responding to the comment that you quoted? 

If you cannot communicate clearly, you cannot wail about "the strawman of all strawmen" when people assume that you are responding to the statements you quote.

[crazy canuck]

The Constitution requires that the government not discriminate.

The government though, has in turn passed legislation which prohibits private people from discriminating when providing goods and services.  In Alberta it's the Alberta HUman Rights Act, and it definitely applies in a  transaction between a shopkeeper and customer.

Do you not have similar laws in the US?  Is it permissible to open a store and have a "No Blacks or Irish" policy?

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).

This is the quote you were responding to Grumbler.

It is saved for posterity.  I see you went back and edited your response to Otto to make it seem you were not being and idiot.  But you couldnt change this one.

Now I know why you have such a fetish for quoting other people so they cant change their posts.  Its because you think other people are just like you.

[grumbler]

The Constitution requires that the government not discriminate.

The government though, has in turn passed legislation which prohibits private people from discriminating when providing goods and services.  In Alberta it's the Alberta HUman Rights Act, and it definitely applies in a  transaction between a shopkeeper and customer.

Do you not have similar laws in the US?  Is it permissible to open a store and have a "No Blacks or Irish" policy?

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).

This is the quote you were responding to Grumbler.

It is saved for posterity.  I see you went back and edited your response to Otto to make it seem you were not being and idiot.  But you couldnt change this one.

Now I know why you have such a fetish for quoting other people so they cant change their posts.  Its because you think other people are just like you.

No, here is the exchange:

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 

Otto makes a statement, I ask him if he is sure about it, and you butt in to declare that you have cited "chapter and section" on it.  That
's the exchange I responded to.  You are quoting a different exchange than the one you claimed I was creating "the strawman of all strawmen" over.  You can't weasel out of this by claiming that i was quoting some other post! 

Just admit it:  you fucked up by not reading this carefully, and butted in to a conversation you didn't understand.  Just say "my mistake" and move on, like I did about my mistaken belief that the discrimination laws only used "public accommodation" to refer to establishments, and not individuals.  You won't lose any lifespan by admitting you were wrong.

[derspiess]

This is like Shia vs. Sunni-- it's ugly, but as long as they're not bothering us...

[grumbler]

This is like Shia vs. Sunni-- it's ugly, but as long as they're not bothering us...

  That's pretty much how I feel about it when you and Raz get into it.  It's generally a good idea to just skip over these kinds of exchanges, except that they can be amusing at times... especially when the weaseling sets in.

[Grallon]

Meanwhile Muslims are leaving Canada for the new Caliphate to "to "live a life of honour" under Islamic law rather than the laws of the "kuffar," or unbelievers."

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/the-life-of-a-jihadi-wife-why-one-canadian-woman-joined-isiss-islamic-state


Let us hope most of those filth make the same decision.  As a matter of fact any Canadian citizen going abroad to fight for the jihad should be stripped of his/her citizenship and forbidden re-entree. 



G.

[Valmy]

So why the hell did they move to Canada in the first place?  Anyway sounds good to me.  We never claimed to be developing nations devoted to lives of honor under Islamic Law over here.

[Grey Fox]

So why the hell did they move to Canada in the first place?  Anyway sounds good to me.  We never claimed to be developing nations devoted lives of honor under Islamic Law over here.

To get away from the Sunnis or Shias.

[derspiess]

This is like Shia vs. Sunni-- it's ugly, but as long as they're not bothering us...

  That's pretty much how I feel about it when you and Raz get into it.  It's generally a good idea to just skip over these kinds of exchanges, except that they can be amusing at times... especially when the weaseling sets in.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler responding to BB: "In the US [Human Rights Law] applies to the public accommodation (i.e. the store), not the individual."

CC: Actually in the US, Human Rights Law applies to individuals as well - here are the sections of your Civil Rights Laws that apply

Grumbler:  I am not wrong.

Repeat Grumbler's posts with appropriate lame excuses for why others didnt actually understand what he was saying and that what he was saying was right all along.  Meh, this board is getting pretty boring.  You can see this shit coming a mile away.

[grumbler]

Grumbler responding to BB: "In the US [Human Rights Law] applies to the public accommodation (i.e. the store), not the individual."

CC: Actually in the US, Human Rights Law applies to individuals as well - here are the sections of your Civil Rights Laws that apply

Grumbler:  I am not wrong.

Repeat Grumbler's posts with appropriate lame excuses for why others didnt actually understand what he was saying and that what he was saying was right all along.  Meh, this board is getting pretty boring.  You can see this shit coming a mile away.

  WTF are you talking about.  BB corrected me, I accepted the correction, and the conversation moved on.  Meanwhile, you butted into a different conversation, made an absurd remark, and now want to pretend it didn't happen and that I was the one replying to the wrong person!    Further, even though I acknowledged my mistake as soon as I saw it, you refuse to acknowledge yours, several weasels later.

The Crazy aNuck Spotted Weasel doesn't ever change his spots, it seems.

See, Spicy, this is what I mean by it getting amusing.  CC now realizes he fucked up, but he is re-writing MY arguments to avoid conceding that he was the one who was wrong in this case.