The recent discussions of the Hobby Lobby case, or the discussion of laws that would allow proprietors of businesses to refuse business if their religious convictions require it ("I ain't sellin' to no gays!") made me wonder ...
On the one hand I'm a bit galled that here's people demanding tolerance for their intolerance, or if you want to put it more bluntly, their right to discriminate. While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).
Anyways, while I disagree with their stances, I can also see their argument that they find they're being discriminated against - them homos ramming their deviant lifestyles down their throats and spitting on their Holy Bible, forced to finance medical prescriptions they don't agree with on principles of faith etc.
I think this is another expression of the culture of outrage that is so prevalent in society these days. Political correctness started out as a good idea - to temper one's language so as to not grossly overstep boundaries - to not call blacks Niggers, or to call gays fags, or Jews kikes or Mexicans wetbacks.
This movement has grown and grown to the point where it's dangerous to say anything that might be perceived as slightly insulting to any specific special interests group.
As a result of this, these groups and people often expect that people go out of their way to not offend them. If someone slights a group - intentionally or unintentionally - the shitstorm is only a few tweets away. People feel they have the right to not be offended by anything.
And while this used to be mostly a prerogative of groups associated with "the left" (ethnic minorities, LGBT community, ...), the conservatives are joining the fun.
Which is highly poisonous to public discourse, from both sides.
Where in the past folks who didn't agree with each other could at least tolerate each other ("I don't agree with your opinions/lifestyle, but this is a free country."), positions are becoming more and more entrenched and irreconcilable.
How to solve it? No idea. People need to chill the fuck out.
Just my 2 cents or your regional currency equivalent.
I dunno. I think you severely underestimate intolerance of political opinions, lifestyles, and creeds in the past (which I suppose means the mid-20th century?).
It is our duty to take up the tolerant man's burden and bring civilization to the intolerant heathens.
It really seems that any sane heartless businessman should convert to Christian Science or some such uber nonsense
Offense is taken, never given.
I think homofag/LGTZYX liberation has turned into a parody of what they used to accuse their enemies of doing. Hence I now find it all about as interesting and relevant as disco music or the Soviet Union. :yawn:
I do shove my "lifestyle" down peoples throats and spit on bibles pretty regularly.
Agreed. Too many groups, too many people, for whom the nurturing and perpetuation of outrage is their central organizing principle.
Your rights end where my feelings begin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2014, 08:11:32 AM
Agreed. Too many groups, too many people, for whom the nurturing and perpetuation of outrage is their central organizing principle.
Yep. It gets so tiresome. And the fact the right wing has grafted onto this and now everybody is a victim :bleeding:
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2014, 06:40:23 AM
I do shove my "lifestyle" down peoples throats
Is that what you call your wiener
Some of my scale model magazines blur the swastikas on Messerschmitts. Need I say more. Need I say more.
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2014, 01:01:13 AM
While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).
The original purpose of human rights laws was to ensure the first principle which is a something with which most people agree. So for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc. Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.
But that principle seems to have been lost. Now equality under the law has been replaced by a kind of superpriority under the law. And now the US Supreme Court has gone further and given superpriority to religious beliefs. The pendulum has swung way too far.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:48:29 AMSo for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc. Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.
Are you sure of that? The second sentence doesn't seem to be connected to the first. A shopkeeper is not the law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2014, 01:01:13 AM
While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).
The original purpose of human rights laws was to ensure the first principle which is a something with which most people agree. So for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc. Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.
But that principle seems to have been lost. Now equality under the law has been replaced by a kind of superpriority under the law. And now the US Supreme Court has gone further and given superpriority to religious beliefs. The pendulum has swung way too far.
Syt - we had the principle that "businesses could refuse service to anyone they wanted" before. It led to certain populations being denied service.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.africaontheblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FMaurice-Mcleod-008.jpg&hash=32f40747fb6c51be6b85b8e5896c419254a6ff29)
CC - I really don't see how the USSC has given "superpriority to religious beliefs". Freedom of religion is a protected right. The Honny Lobby case is a fairly routine conflict of rights case if you strip out all the Obamacare outrage. You can disagree with exactly where you draw the line between religious freedom and freedom from discrimination, but clearly you have to draw the line somewhere. A church would surely be within it's rights to not rent out it's worship room to a bunch of satanists, or for the filming or pornography (gay or straight).
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2014, 04:55:00 PM
CC - I really don't see how the USSC has given "superpriority to religious beliefs".
Rather than the age old Rule of Law that all are equal under laws of general application Corporations now get to opt out of laws of general application based on the religious beliefs of their shareholders. It is a terrible decision that will have terrible knock on consequences for the US.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 03, 2014, 04:42:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:48:29 AMSo for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc. Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.
Are you sure of that? The second sentence doesn't seem to be connected to the first. A shopkeeper is not the law.
Just trying to act dumb? :hmm:
Quite frankly, there's as much of a counter-attack on perceived political correctness with as much outrage as there is a culture of outrage on the left. There's a reason Europe voted the stupid shithead ticket in the last EU parliamentary elections. Nobody's communicating anymore, they're proselytising and postulating.
Culture warriors with no sense of perspective dominate both sides.
Fuck them all.
Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2014, 09:32:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2014, 08:11:32 AM
Agreed. Too many groups, too many people, for whom the nurturing and perpetuation of outrage is their central organizing principle.
Yep. It gets so tiresome. And the fact the right wing has grafted onto this and now everybody is a victim :bleeding:
The right wing
invented this.
Quote from: Norgy on July 03, 2014, 05:33:29 PM
Quite frankly, there's as much of a counter-attack on perceived political correctness with as much outrage as there is a culture of outrage on the left. There's a reason Europe voted the stupid shithead ticket in the last EU parliamentary elections. Nobody's communicating anymore, they're proselytising and postulating.
Culture warriors with no sense of perspective dominate both sides.
Fuck them all.
:(
This thread needs trigger warnings.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 03, 2014, 08:14:49 PM
This thread needs trigger warnings.
Trigger Warning: Douchebaggery
As Voltaire once remarked "I disapprove of what you say and I'm going to scream and scream until you stop saying it.".
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 03, 2014, 04:42:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:48:29 AMSo for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc. Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.
Are you sure of that? The second sentence doesn't seem to be connected to the first. A shopkeeper is not the law.
Just trying to act dumb? :hmm:
Not at all. You're trying to equate equal protection under law with equal treatment of each other. It's not the same thing.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 04, 2014, 02:03:02 AM
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.
Oh yeah me too. In the 1850s I'd be hanged. :P
Indeed. And as far as private actor shrillness, we need only look at any given election year of the past.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2014, 04:55:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2014, 01:01:13 AM
While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).
The original purpose of human rights laws was to ensure the first principle which is a something with which most people agree. So for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc. Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.
But that principle seems to have been lost. Now equality under the law has been replaced by a kind of superpriority under the law. And now the US Supreme Court has gone further and given superpriority to religious beliefs. The pendulum has swung way too far.
Syt - we had the principle that "businesses could refuse service to anyone they wanted" before. It led to certain populations being denied service.
It's why I said, "Unless he breaks any laws" (which in many cases he would). And he would have to live with being ostracized if people disagree with his discrimination. I'm always in favor of intolerant fucks to reveal themselves for the douchebags they are.
Besides, shopkeepers have been replaced by soulless corporations who have little incentive to turn away customers.
I'm very much of the conviction that people should be free to voice their opinions, no matter how retarded or backwards. However, freedom of opinion doesn't mean freedom from criticism, challenge, mockery or rejection (which some people seem to think).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 04, 2014, 01:51:01 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 03, 2014, 04:42:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:48:29 AMSo for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc. Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.
Are you sure of that? The second sentence doesn't seem to be connected to the first. A shopkeeper is not the law.
Just trying to act dumb? :hmm:
Not at all. You're trying to equate equal protection under law with equal treatment of each other. It's not the same thing.
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
Quote from: Syt on July 04, 2014, 02:42:30 AM
I'm very much of the conviction that people should be free to voice their opinions, no matter how retarded or backwards. However, freedom of opinion doesn't mean freedom from criticism, challenge, mockery or rejection (which some people seem to think).
Agreed. Also freedom of expression does not include the freedom to discriminate against others by denying services based on race, religion etc.
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2014, 01:01:13 AM
While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).
The problem I see would be the rights for minorities. If I refuse to serve gays or blacks in my shop, for whatever reasons, and these people aren't in a sufficient number, or in a effective position to counter this move, than we are back to the era of white only restrooms, white only buses, white only restaurants and so on.
I think there are limits to what I can do. Discriminating against an individual is ok, but against an entire group because you believe they are inferiors?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
No it doesn't. It requires that the government not discriminate against anyone on those grounds.
In a transaction between a shopkeeper and a customer it does not apply. Or do you have a different version in Canada?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 04, 2014, 11:57:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
No it doesn't. It requires that the government not discriminate against anyone on those grounds.
In a transaction between a shopkeeper and a customer it does not apply. Or do you have a different version in Canada?
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?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 04, 2014, 11:57:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
No it doesn't. It requires that the government not discriminate against anyone on those grounds.
In a transaction between a shopkeeper and a customer it does not apply. Or do you have a different version in Canada?
I would be very surprised if it was legal in your country for a shopkeeper to deny service to a customer because of their race.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 12:02:49 PMThe 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?
I believe this must be rhetorical, but yah:
42 USC 21 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21), first passed in 1964 and amended several times (one of the big ones was amending it to protect the disabled similar to race/religious beliefs and such, I believe the elderly were an amendment as well.) It covers a lot of things for government entities and public accommodations, and defines what a public accommodation is--which is basically any business that's not a strict private member club.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2014, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 12:02:49 PMThe 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?
I believe this must be rhetorical, but yah:
42 USC 21 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21), first passed in 1964 and amended several times (one of the big ones was amending it to protect the disabled similar to race/religious beliefs and such, I believe the elderly were an amendment as well.) It covers a lot of things for government entities and public accommodations, and defines what a public accommodation is--which is basically any business that's not a strict private member club.
I am not sure what you mean by rhetorical. It was in response to MiM who apparently believes it is still legal for a shop keeper to discriminate by refusing service to someone based on their race, religion etc.
No I just mean the equal protection clause does not apply.
Which is probably why the USSC decided this way and everyone is baffled.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 04, 2014, 12:21:04 PM
No I just mean the equal protection clause does not apply.
Which is probably why the USSC decided this way and everyone is baffled.
I am not sure what you mean. Everyone is baffled because the US Supreme Court found that Corporations have religious beliefs. And they came to that conclusion by ignoring that very reason for limited liability companies which is to create a legal fiction which separates the shareholder from the actions of the corporation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 12:16:27 PM
I am not sure what you mean by rhetorical. It was in response to MiM who apparently believes it is still legal for a shop keeper to discriminate by refusing service to someone based on their race, religion etc.
A rhetorical question is a question used to make a point, not one in which the questioner genuinely wants or doesn't know the answer to his question. My presumption being BB, as a legal type and one who talks with Americans on a regular basis, is probably well aware shopkeepers cannot ban blacks from their stores down here and he was asking the question to make a point to counter MiM.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2014, 12:36:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 12:16:27 PM
I am not sure what you mean by rhetorical. It was in response to MiM who apparently believes it is still legal for a shop keeper to discriminate by refusing service to someone based on their race, religion etc.
A rhetorical question is a question used to make a point, not one in which the questioner genuinely wants or doesn't know the answer to his question. My presumption being BB, as a legal type and one who talks with Americans on a regular basis, is probably well aware shopkeepers cannot ban blacks from their stores down here and he was asking the question to make a point to counter MiM.
I was 98% sure there must be such a law, but allowing a tiny chance I was wrong.
My understanding though is that in many jurisdictions those laws do not apply to sexual orientation.
The construct is that the Federal laws prohibit discrimination in those areas I mentioned as it pertains to protected classes. The protected classes are specifically laid out in the Federal law, which was written in 1964 and amended I believe as recently as the 2000s (to prohibit discrimination against people based on knowledge of their genome, oddly enough.) Sexual orientation is not one of the protected classes, so has no Federal protection under these laws in any jurisdiction.
But many States have their own Civil Rights Acts (because of the Supremacy Clause, the State laws cannot contradict directly the Federal law in this area, but they can cover other things), and many State Civil Rights acts have sexual orientation as a protected class. I couldn't guess as to what number of States does, and in some States I even know cities have such laws but the State doesn't (cities are a total construct of State law, some States allow for very powerful cities with powerful local laws, others cities basically can decide how to spend local money and administer their area, but can make few substantive laws of any kind.)
As an example I'm aware of, Ohio is a strong "home rule" State (home rule in the U.S. means cities have a lot of legislative power within their borders and the State legislature has less), but has no real statewide laws protecting sexual orientation. In Columbus, the local Catholic Bishop fired a woman's phys ed teacher employed at one of the Diocese High Schools when it came out publicly that she was a lesbian. Basically there was an obituary I believe that listed her partner as "her wife" or something of that nature, which alerted parents, who complained to the Bishop, who fired the teacher.
But Columbus actually protects sexual orientation as a matter of municipal law, and does not make exemptions based on being a religious organization. The fired teacher had started to take the action that would have resulted in a ruling (almost certainly against the Diocese), but then dropped the matter--it was revealed she had privately settled the matter with the Dioecese (read: took a fat stack of bills to go away.) It'd be interesting to see what would have happened if Columbus had found the Diocese in violation of the municipal law, it may have resulted in eventually a Federal claim on first amendment grounds, but it never got that far.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
Actually, the US law doesn't do that. Can't speak for the Canadian law.
Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally. Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 12:02:49 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 12:52:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
Actually, the US law doesn't do that. Can't speak for the Canadian law.
Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally. Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."
You missed the part where I stated "on enumerated grounds". ;)
Also people is a murky term, a sole proprietorship restaurant cannot discriminate based on race. And in many legal aspects the proprietor and the business/accommodation are one and the same in that situation.
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 12:57:04 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 12:52:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
Actually, the US law doesn't do that. Can't speak for the Canadian law.
Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally. Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."
You missed the part where I stated "on enumerated grounds". ;)
No, "people" can discriminate. I'm free to hate you because you're tall, to not invite chinese people to my house, or to not date someone because of their religion.
It's only when you deal with the "provision of goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public" that Human Rights legislation kicks in.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 01:19:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 12:52:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
Actually, the US law doesn't do that. Can't speak for the Canadian law.
Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally. Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."
You missed the part where I stated "on enumerated grounds". ;)
No, "people" can discriminate. I'm free to hate you because you're tall, to not invite chinese people to my house, or to not date someone because of their religion.
It's only when you deal with the "provision of goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public" that Human Rights legislation kicks in.
:frusty:
Do you not understand what "on enumerated grounds" means?
I discriminated against people all the time as a bail bondsman. That was reason #475 why it was so cool.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 01:19:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 12:52:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 08:36:06 AM
:huh:
I am not trying to equate anything. The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds. You know, the thing this thread is about.
Actually, the US law doesn't do that. Can't speak for the Canadian law.
Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally. Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."
You missed the part where I stated "on enumerated grounds". ;)
No, "people" can discriminate. I'm free to hate you because you're tall, to not invite chinese people to my house, or to not date someone because of their religion.
It's only when you deal with the "provision of goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public" that Human Rights legislation kicks in.
:frusty:
Do you not understand what "on enumerated grounds" means?
There are two different aspects - who does the law apply to, and on what basis are you prohibited from discriminating. The "enumerated grounds" deals with the areas you can not discriminate on - the usual sex, race, religion, etc. However all of that only applies to providing goods and services to the public.
At least BB is better than those South American prosecutors: "GAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2014, 01:32:32 PM
At least BB is better than those South American prosecutors: "GAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 01:30:41 PM
There are two different aspects - who does the law apply to, and on what basis are you prohibited from discriminating. The "enumerated grounds" deals with the areas you can not discriminate on - the usual sex, race, religion, etc. However all of that only applies to providing goods and services to the public.
You are wrong about it only applying goods and services to the public. prohibitions on discrimination enumerated ( :P) in Human Rights codes in this country and in the Civil Rights codes in the US also deal with employment.
If you want to think I meant that all discrimination was illegal and not just the disrimination enumerated in the Code then all I can say is that is typical for Languish.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 01:50:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 01:30:41 PM
There are two different aspects - who does the law apply to, and on what basis are you prohibited from discriminating. The "enumerated grounds" deals with the areas you can not discriminate on - the usual sex, race, religion, etc. However all of that only applies to providing goods and services to the public.
You are wrong about it only applying goods and services to the public. prohibitions on discrimination enumerated ( :P) in Human Rights codes in this country and in the Civil Rights codes in the US also deal with employment.
If you want to think I meant that all discrimination was illegal and not just the disrimination enumerated in the Code then all I can say is that is typical for Languish.
That seemed to be what you were saying, but thanks for clarifying. :)
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.
lol@those
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2014, 03:06:32 PM
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. :contract:
But educational level is? Do I detect a sense of subconscious shame at your inferior law degree?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 04, 2014, 03:22:48 PM
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.
I was just kidding. :weep:
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2014, 03:06:32 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 12:57:04 PM
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?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2014, 01:05:11 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 06:40:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2014, 01:05:11 PM
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 :P
It is somewhat disconcerting that a teacher doesnt understand that individuals have these obligations.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 06:55:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 06:40:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2014, 01:05:11 PM
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 :P
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:
QuoteWhenever 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.
QuoteWhenever 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.
QuoteThe 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. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on July 04, 2014, 02:03:02 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 06:40:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2014, 01:05:11 PM
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.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 05, 2014, 02:41:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 06:40:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2014, 01:05:11 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2014, 10:48:50 AM
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.
That was very well put. I'm not just saying that because you're a Jew who drinks bad beer.
Bigotry won't be eliminated, but simply redirected.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2014, 03:23:20 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2014, 10:48:50 AM
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.
That was very well put. I'm not just saying that because you're a Jew who drinks bad beer.
If it's a legitimate biological trait--not that you can't apply an evolutionary framework to any dynamic system, but it's a very imperfect framework when talking about social progress--then 1 to 2 generations should be like 1000 to 2000 generations. And since natural selection barely applies to modern humans, it'll never be removed without intervention.
That said, fear of the Other is almost certainly a biological trait. There just aren't that many Others left and those that are we're told we shouldn't hate, which is possibly one factor as to why we're atomized and sad. :hmm:
Quote from: Siege on July 06, 2014, 10:48:50 AM
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.
I don't know if it's biological or 'artificial' or anything else. I'm not sure that it matters either, what difference does it make in your view?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 04:30:54 PM
That said, fear of the Other is almost certainly a biological trait.
Are there any species in which the newborn demonstrate this fear? My experience is to the contrary.
People who speak of the capital O "Other" make me sick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2014, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 04:30:54 PM
That said, fear of the Other is almost certainly a biological trait.
Are there any species in which the newborn demonstrate this fear? My experience is to the contrary.
Language and walking are biological traits that newborn don't demonstrate. What is your point?
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2014, 05:02:02 PM
People who speak of the capital O "Other" make me sick.
Yet we know your inclusiveness knows no bounds.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 04:30:54 PM
That said, fear of the Other is almost certainly a biological trait.
With good reason. Would you trust any of these people?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.fanpop.com%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2F6500000%2FBen-Linus-lost-lads-6505471-400-221.jpg&hash=09cf0ce8906b52b6714f23d380a8bdb3bbc81e7c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.filmschoolrejects.com%2Fimages%2Fthrones_valar4.jpg&hash=bb8b81ba2b1e4216621a244f876cb475a886b0da)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaryforkids.com%2Fpics%2Fthe-others.jpg&hash=de6fd24c9f857b3954d40c94b70303ce3cdc5eb4)
"These people"? Wow, buddy.
Anyway, I don't really think we need someone to hate to feel complete. Probably. Although it would fit well into my "humans are deeply flawed" worldview.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 05:17:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2014, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 04:30:54 PM
That said, fear of the Other is almost certainly a biological trait.
Are there any species in which the newborn demonstrate this fear? My experience is to the contrary.
Language and walking are biological traits that newborn don't demonstrate. What is your point?
Language is a biological trait? LOL
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2014, 05:33:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 05:17:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2014, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 04:30:54 PM
That said, fear of the Other is almost certainly a biological trait.
Are there any species in which the newborn demonstrate this fear? My experience is to the contrary.
Language and walking are biological traits that newborn don't demonstrate. What is your point?
Language is a biological trait? LOL
:unsure:
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2014, 05:33:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 05:17:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2014, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 04:30:54 PM
That said, fear of the Other is almost certainly a biological trait.
Are there any species in which the newborn demonstrate this fear? My experience is to the contrary.
Language and walking are biological traits that newborn don't demonstrate. What is your point?
Language is a biological trait? LOL
not as in "english is genetic" or "noam chomsky is right" but rather the ability to speak and the instinct to speak are biological.
I don't know. Maybe all the creatures of the forest speak to dps, and he's just never mentioned it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2014, 04:56:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2014, 04:30:54 PM
That said, fear of the Other is almost certainly a biological trait.
Are there any species in which the newborn demonstrate this fear? My experience is to the contrary.
Well, yes, any species which a new born is expected to by physically fit or hide fear is real. Human newborns are incapable of hiding or running, they are only capable of calling for help. Crying is one of hte manifestations of fear and it brings all human adults within range running, even today.
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 07:12:15 PM
Go ahead and find the criminal penalties under federal law. :P
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 08:57:06 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 07:12:15 PM
Go ahead and find the criminal penalties under federal law. :P
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? :huh:
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. :contract:
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 12:57:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 12:02:49 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 09:32:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 12:57:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2014, 12:02:49 PM
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:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2014, 06:55:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2014, 06:40:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2014, 01:05:11 PM
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 :P
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! :lol:
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.
This is like Shia vs. Sunni-- it's ugly, but as long as they're not bothering us...
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2014, 10:29:37 AM
This is like Shia vs. Sunni-- it's ugly, but as long as they're not bothering us...
:lol: 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2014, 10:46:50 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2014, 10:33:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2014, 10:29:37 AM
This is like Shia vs. Sunni-- it's ugly, but as long as they're not bothering us...
:lol: 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.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 12:45:02 PM
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.
:huh: 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! :lol: 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.