What scares the f*ck out of you?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Griff

Ted Cruz, White House, maybe I over-react...

how about Ted Cruz on climate change and/or history?

I give you a reprint of an Open Letter From Galileo to Ted Cruz.

Late last night, Galileo’s skeletal hand (not the one that’s in a museum, the other one) reached out of a grave and gave me this letter. I reproduce it in full.

Dear Ted, Dear Everyone,
Please stop dragging me into this. Please, please stop.

I spent most of the afternoon spinning vigorously in my grave. If someone had hooked me up to a generator, I could have powered a small village.

I spun because Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) told the Texas Tribune the following, as transcribed by Kate Sheppard of the Huffington Post:

Ted, your grasp of history is as secure as your grasp of science.

This is so wrong. This is more wrong than the geocentric model of the universe, the thing I actually spent my life debunking. (We knew Earth wasn’t flat, dang it. Columbus had already sailed!) What I battled wasn’t a ruling scientific theory, either. It was religious dogma. I am not saying that those are opposites, but mistaking one for the other is like mistaking you for someone with an understanding of climate science.

In fact, when you say “accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat” you mean “non-accepted non-scientific not-wisdom that had nothing to do with the flatness of the Earth.” Other than that, though, accurate.

If this shook hands with the literal truth of what happened, they would both vanish.

It is an honor just to be remembered. So few of us historical figures are. But how do I put this? What is an analogy that will penetrate?

It’s like saying “by opposing vaccinations, I am just following in the footsteps of a heretic called Edward Jenner, who as we all know invented the light bulb.” This is like invoking Elizabeth Cady Stanton to support Men’s Rights Activism, but crediting her with Prohibition. It’s like saying, “I am a Democrat, just like Ronald Reagan, who of course won the Civil War.” You might as well thank Tesla every time you perform dark magic.

Look, I’m the last person who wants to get dogmatic about science. If the facts stop supporting the theory, scientists will change the theory. That’s how it works. Heck, I even recanted when I was right.

And I don’t care what you believe about the climate. I mean, I’m dead already. I don’t care what you do with the place. Just don’t use my name to lend yourself credibility. Once being forced into a lot of inaccurate statements by people whose grasp on science was lacking is enough.

Eppur si muove,

Galileo Galilei

Confidential to JB, HRC, RP, MR, RS, SW, CC or even BC or NG or SP or MO’M: Please, please get into this soon so that I do not have to write to Ted Cruz every day.

[tw]

An extremist Senator from NC wants legislation that removes washing hands laws for all food industry employees. He says they should have freedom from government regulation. An obvious characteristic of extremists (such as Ted Cruz). Freedom is more important than responsibility.

That law exists due to irresponsible adults (who think like children) who did not wash their hands. We know this problem still exists (ie Hepatitis C, Listeria, etc). But extremists (ie Ted Cruz) get elected by attacking responsible adults for requiring 'adults who are still children' to act in an adult manner.

These same extremists are now promoting laws called 'Freedom of Religion'. Another example of how extremists pervert words such as Freedom and Liberty. "Freedom of Religion" says anyone can impose their religious beliefs on anyone else. As even PA Senator Santorum did. So we threw the scumbag out.

But extremists love this Catholic who also advocates imposting Catholic Church doctrine into all American laws. To impose his religion on all others as ordered to by the previous Pope. Santorum is another extremist who endorses a now peverted expression "Freedom of Religion".

[henry quirk]

tw,

Should an atheist printer be legally obligated to print flyers for Christian fundamentalists (who proclaim in the text of the proposed flyer 'atheists will burn in hell!')?

If yes, why?

If no, why?

[BigV]

My answer is yes. Here's why. I don't believe "Christian fundamentalists" or "atheists" or any other religious tradition, are a protected class, and therefore don't deserve such kind or "protection against discrimination".

I think protected classes should be for aspects that aren't voluntary, like a religious tradition is voluntary. Being of a particular racial appearance, or gender, or age... those things aren't voluntary. Discrimination based on such unchangeable, unchosen aspects is unfair, though it happens anyhow. Anti-discrimination laws are a valid effort to ameliorate the damage from such discrimination.

Furthermore, creating a protected class for Christian fundamentalists, or atheists, or FSMers or whatever, goes against my understanding of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[Lamplighter]

V, It's much easier to decide.

If you have a business license to sell to the public... you sell to all of the public.

(Printers may have an out in refusing what is legally pornographic;
but that is a different issue, not legally dependent on who is the customer.)

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

V, It's much easier to decide.

If you have a business license to sell to the public... you sell to all of the public.

What if you own a law practice and your big IP client is Apple, and a small porn company that specializes in realistic simulated extremely brutal rape porn wants you to represent them in a copyright dispute? It's a case that has drawn a lot of media attention because the starlet claims it was a real rape, even though she signed a contract earlier consenting to it in detail. The case isn't about the alleged rape, it's about another website streaming the video of it and violating the copyright. Anyway, can the law firm turn down the job for the porn company so they don't lose squeaky clean Apple's $500M a year worth of business?

[henry quirk]

Seems to me: the issue is neatly dealt with if one drops the whole religious freedom angle and gets down to the root, which is 'property'.

A business is property, it's owned. The owner, I think, should use (or misuse) his or property as he or she sees fit.

If such use (or misuse) offends the market (customers, potential and actual) then the owner will be punished through loss of profit. If such use (or misuse) pleases the market, then the owner will be rewarded through improved profit.

Not seein' how a focus on religion (freedom or restrictions on) serves any purpose 'cept to muddy the waters.

What I'm sayin': the atheist should be able to refuse the job for whatever reason (or for no reason) he cobbles together. The print shop is his to use or misuse as he sees fit.

Now, if I were the printer, I'd print anything and everything that comes across the threshold of my shop (if the money is right).

Monday: lesbian (I love her vulva!) wedding invitations.

Tuesday: KKK Holy Rollin' (don't forgit yer chewin' tobbacee!) Revival flyers.

Wednesday: Pro-choice (kill them babies!) pamphlets.

Thursday: Anti-abortion (don't kill them babies!) pamphlets.

Friday: Obama is my Lord and Savior (I'll blow him!) bumper stickers.

Saturday: Obama is the Anti-Christ (I'll blow him up!) bumper stickers.

Sunday: whatever comes through the door (and can pay).

But my mercenary bent is 'my' bent...can't see any good comin' from forcing that print shop across the way to do the same (besides, his principled stand [or prejudice] against 'this or 'that' may mean more profit for me).

This only exception I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).

Again: the religion angle that both (all) sides run through the legal machinery just muddies the issue.

But: of course, that's the way the chess board is currently set for play (and why, in the end, not a one will be satisfied with the short- or long-term results).

[henry quirk]

"...can the law firm turn down the job for the porn company so they don't lose squeaky clean Apple's $500M a year worth of business?"

In my view (outlined above): yep.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

What if you own a law practice and your big IP client is Apple,
and a small porn company that specializes in realistic simulated extremely brutal rape porn
wants you to represent them in a copyright dispute? <snip>

I'm not clear on your example... I'm assuming the following
Apple is your existing client.
The porn company is a prospective client.
The copyright issue is not between Apple and the porn company ?


I don't know what sort of formal ethics the legal community has set for itself.
Likewise for physicians deciding who will be their patients.
But there is the concept that everyone in need is entitled to an attorney and/or physician.

In your example, my first decision would be along the lines of
"Is there a conflict of interest or exposure of proprietary information" by representing the porno company.
If not, then a business license is to serve all of the public.

I suspect these kinds of issues occur frequently...
but I do not see a "religious freedom" issue in this specific example.

[BigV]

That's all well and good if you're a mercenary. But what if you're a bigot? You didn't mention any situation in which you as the business owner should be compelled to do business with a particular customer despite the desire of the business to NOT deliver the product or service.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Seems to me: the issue is neatly dealt with if one drops the whole religious freedom angle and gets down to the root, which is 'property'.

A business is property, it's owned. The owner, I think, should use (or misuse) his or property as he or she sees fit. <snip>

Only if you are King on your own wholly-island could you make such an argument. (pun not intended)
And you'd lose that argument the first time you tried to buy something from another King.

But like it or not, our laws require a business license to sell to or service the public.

You may try to make the trivial argument that the government just wants to make $,
but license fees are not the sine qua non of issuing a business license.

A license is a "statement" that each licensee agrees to abide by certain Laws, Rules, and Regulations.

And non-descrimination has become one of the laws of commerce in the U.S.

[henry quirk]

V,

As I say: Th(e) only exception I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).

So: if you're the only pharmacist in town, denying life-saving medicine cuz you object to the way it's produced (or, cuz you don't like the customer) is a no-no.

But: denying lesbians a wedding cake cuz you think gay marriage is immoral is a-ok (as would be refusing to do business with a, for example, Republican [if that’s the burr under your saddle]).

Again (repetition is good!): Th(e) only exception (and coherent objection) I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).

[henry quirk]

Lamp,

"And non-descrimination has become one of the laws of commerce in the U.S."

As is the religious freedom restoration act (federally and, increasingly, on the state level).

Bad law is bad law, yes?

#

"And you'd lose that argument the first time you tried to buy something from another King."

Nope. Covered that in my original post. The market (potential and actual customers) decides...let it (them).

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I'm not clear on your example

The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people. But don't get hung up on Apple. Pretend the lucrative client is ChickFilA.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people.

... if these guys get into bed with pornographers ... (pun intended ?)

No, I don't think "it's just fine for a law firm..."
That's not to say I don't think it happens.

But, were the pornographers able to bring a discrimination suit against the law firm,
I believe and hope this law would have a hard time giving legal
arguments to defend their firm's actions based on PR or religious freedom.