Discussion:
OT: What would you do?
Add Reply
Tony Cooper
2018-09-05 19:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.

I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.

Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
too.)

When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.

OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.

Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
doesn't come across as a bigot?

I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Cheryl
2018-09-05 22:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>
> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>
> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> too.)
>
> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>
> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>
> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>
> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>
I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
the job. Sometimes I do know.

I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
aggressively.

So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
subject again.


--
Cheryl
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-05 23:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> > Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >
> > I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> > that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> > that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >
> > Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> > was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> > too.)
> >
> > When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> > in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> > watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> > while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >
> > OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> > bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >
> > Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> > doesn't come across as a bigot?
> >
> > I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> > don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> > outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> > bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
> >
> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>
> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
> aggressively.
>
> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
> subject again.
>
>

All it takes for evil to triumph ....
Cheryl
2018-09-05 23:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 8:52 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>
>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>
>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>> too.)
>>>
>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>
>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>
>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>
>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>
>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>
>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>> aggressively.
>>
>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>> subject again.
>>
>>
>
> All it takes for evil to triumph ....

It's so handy when you define as "evil" any ideas you find disgusting.
You get instant moral superiority and all the accompanying emotional and
sometimes social and political advantages without actually putting any
effort into understanding or - God forbid - living and working with
people who aren't like you.

--
Cheryl
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-05 23:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 6 September 2018 00:33:28 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 8:52 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> >>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >>>
> >>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> >>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> >>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >>>
> >>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> >>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> >>> too.)
> >>>
> >>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> >>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> >>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> >>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >>>
> >>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> >>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >>>
> >>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> >>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> >>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> >>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> >>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
> >>>
> >> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
> >> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
> >> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
> >> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
> >> the job. Sometimes I do know.
> >>
> >> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
> >> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
> >> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
> >> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
> >> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
> >> aggressively.
> >>
> >> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
> >> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
> >> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
> >> subject again.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > All it takes for evil to triumph ....
>
> It's so handy when you define as "evil" any ideas you find disgusting.
> You get instant moral superiority and all the accompanying emotional and
> sometimes social and political advantages without actually putting any
> effort into understanding or - God forbid - living and working with
> people who aren't like you.
>

Oh dear. Touched a nerve there, obviously. You've certainly swooped
to a wild interpretation of this famous and wise quotation.

So, you think that the kind of ingrained racism that means that
people are denied employment opportunities and refused custom
simply for breathing while 'Spanish' isn't evil. I think even the most
extreme moral relativist would have a hard time with that!
Sam Plusnet
2018-09-06 18:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06-Sep-18 0:48, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 September 2018 00:33:28 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 8:52 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>> too.)
>>>>>
>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>>
>>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>>>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>>>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>>>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>>>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>>>
>>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>>>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>>>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>>>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>>>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>>>> aggressively.
>>>>
>>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>>>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>>>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>>>> subject again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> All it takes for evil to triumph ....
>>
>> It's so handy when you define as "evil" any ideas you find disgusting.
>> You get instant moral superiority and all the accompanying emotional and
>> sometimes social and political advantages without actually putting any
>> effort into understanding or - God forbid - living and working with
>> people who aren't like you.
>>
>
> Oh dear. Touched a nerve there, obviously. You've certainly swooped
> to a wild interpretation of this famous and wise quotation.
>
> So, you think that the kind of ingrained racism that means that
> people are denied employment opportunities and refused custom
> simply for breathing while 'Spanish' isn't evil. I think even the most
> extreme moral relativist would have a hard time with that!
>
You could at least thank Cheryl for giving you this opportunity to ride
the high horse.

(Rocinante?)


--
Sam Plusnet
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-09-09 10:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Den 06-09-2018 kl. 01:33 skrev Cheryl:
> On 2018-09-05 8:52 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P  wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in.  The man's English was so broken
>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>
>>>> Ken blew him off.  Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>> was talking about.  (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>> too.)
>>>>
>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish.  Ken almost erupted.  "Not on my
>>>> watch!".  He said he wouldn't hire any of "them".  He went on for a
>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>
>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>> bigot.  I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>
>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken.  I don't agree with him, and I
>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>> outspoken about his prejudices.  Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>
>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>>
>>> I also think that  tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>>> aggressively.
>>>
>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>>> subject again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All it takes for evil to triumph ....
>
> It's so handy when you define as "evil" any ideas you find disgusting.
> You get instant moral superiority and all the accompanying emotional and
> sometimes social and political advantages without actually putting any
> effort into understanding or - God forbid - living and working with
> people who aren't like you.

That is not my reading at all. What I got from Madrigal's half quote is
that if YOU (here, Tony) find something sufficiently disgusting,
YOU need to act on it. Leaving it up to Tony to make his own assessment.

/Anders, Denmark.
occam
2018-09-06 10:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 01:22, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>
>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>
>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>> too.)
>>>
>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>
>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>
>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>
>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>
>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>
>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>> aggressively.
>>
>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>> subject again.
>>
>>
>
> All it takes for evil to triumph ....
>

Bullshit. I take my car to the mechanic for his knowledge of car
engines, not for his political views.

If I were to boycott everyone I did not agree with on *all* levels -
ethics, politics, know-how, language etc, I'd have no dealings with most
of the people around me. That includes AUE posters.
GordonD
2018-09-06 11:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 11:19, occam wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 01:22, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several
>>>> years. Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic
>>>> man (one that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's
>>>> English was so broken that he could barely communicate that the
>>>> "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>
>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand
>>>> what he was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm
>>>> sure Ken did too.)
>>>>
>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs
>>>> someone in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted.
>>>> "Not on my watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them".
>>>> He went on for a while about job stealing, illegal immigration,
>>>> and the like.
>>>>
>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that
>>>> Ken's a bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I
>>>> don't like bigots.
>>>>
>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other
>>>> mechanic who doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with
>>>> him, and I don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really
>>>> know is that he's outspoken about his prejudices. Some other
>>>> mechanic may be equally bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd
>>>> know.
>>>>
>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly
>>> (although I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much
>>> of a generalized slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't
>>> know, because like the theoretical other mechanic, they don't
>>> talk about controversial topic on the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>>
>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of
>>> others to have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with,
>>> but find disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by
>>> my own definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at
>>> walking a middle path between not implying agreement, and also
>>> not rejecting the person aggressively.
>>>
>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed
>>> political views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the
>>> subject to cars, and if that didn't work, murmur a mild
>>> disagreement and change the subject again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All it takes for evil to triumph ....
>>
>
> Bullshit. I take my car to the mechanic for his knowledge of car
> engines, not for his political views.
>
> If I were to boycott everyone I did not agree with on *all* levels -
> ethics, politics, know-how, language etc, I'd have no dealings with
> most of the people around me. That includes AUE posters.
>

There's a difference between holding different political views and
outright bigotry. I probably couldn't point to the dividing line but I
could tell which side of it a particular individual fell.

If the garage had a sign outside reading NO BLACKS would you still use it?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 11:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 6:19:10 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 01:22, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> >>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >>>
> >>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> >>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> >>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >>>
> >>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> >>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> >>> too.)
> >>>
> >>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> >>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> >>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> >>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >>>
> >>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> >>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >>>
> >>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> >>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> >>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> >>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> >>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
> >>>
> >> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
> >> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
> >> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
> >> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
> >> the job. Sometimes I do know.
> >>
> >> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
> >> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
> >> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
> >> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
> >> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
> >> aggressively.
> >>
> >> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
> >> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
> >> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
> >> subject again.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > All it takes for evil to triumph ....
> >
>
> Bullshit. I take my car to the mechanic for his knowledge of car
> engines, not for his political views.
>
> If I were to boycott everyone I did not agree with on *all* levels -
> ethics, politics, know-how, language etc, I'd have no dealings with most
> of the people around me. That includes AUE posters.

There's a difference between "having" political views and acting on them
to the detriment of the victims of those views.
occam
2018-09-06 14:39:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 6:19:10 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 01:22, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>> too.)
>>>>>
>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>>
>>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>>>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>>>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>>>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>>>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>>>
>>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>>>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>>>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>>>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>>>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>>>> aggressively.
>>>>
>>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>>>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>>>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>>>> subject again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> All it takes for evil to triumph ....
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit. I take my car to the mechanic for his knowledge of car
>> engines, not for his political views.
>>
>> If I were to boycott everyone I did not agree with on *all* levels -
>> ethics, politics, know-how, language etc, I'd have no dealings with most
>> of the people around me. That includes AUE posters.
>
> There's a difference between "having" political views and acting on them
> to the detriment of the victims of those views.
>

If that is the case, then the next time you go into a butcher's, baker's
or candlestick maker's, you should explicitly ascertain - establish
beyond any reasonable doubt - that there are no hidden bigotry issues in
the persons you are dealing with *before* you make a purchase. Ask them
how they feel about abortion, LGBTQ issues, coloured persons, Muslims
etc prior to any transaction. Because if they do have different views
from yours, they will inevitably act on those sooner or later, to the
detriment of the victims. 'Acting' on bigoted views takes all forms -
from outright insults (as in the case of Tony's mechanic) to passive
aggressive stance (refusing to respond) to simply smiling indifferently.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-06 15:56:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 6 September 2018 15:39:43 UTC+1, occam wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 13:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 6:19:10 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> >> On 06/09/2018 01:22, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
> >>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> >>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> >>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> >>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> >>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> >>>>> too.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> >>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> >>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> >>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> >>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> >>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> >>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> >>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> >>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
> >>>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
> >>>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
> >>>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
> >>>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
> >>>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
> >>>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
> >>>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
> >>>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
> >>>> aggressively.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
> >>>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
> >>>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
> >>>> subject again.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> All it takes for evil to triumph ....
> >>>
> >>
> >> Bullshit. I take my car to the mechanic for his knowledge of car
> >> engines, not for his political views.
> >>
> >> If I were to boycott everyone I did not agree with on *all* levels -
> >> ethics, politics, know-how, language etc, I'd have no dealings with most
> >> of the people around me. That includes AUE posters.
> >
> > There's a difference between "having" political views and acting on them
> > to the detriment of the victims of those views.
> >
>
> If that is the case, then the next time you go into a butcher's, baker's
> or candlestick maker's, you should explicitly ascertain - establish
> beyond any reasonable doubt - that there are no hidden bigotry issues in
> the persons you are dealing with *before* you make a purchase. Ask them
> how they feel about abortion, LGBTQ issues, coloured persons, Muslims
> etc prior to any transaction. Because if they do have different views
> from yours, they will inevitably act on those sooner or later, to the
> detriment of the victims. 'Acting' on bigoted views takes all forms -
> from outright insults (as in the case of Tony's mechanic) to passive
> aggressive stance (refusing to respond) to simply smiling indifferently.

Huh? You've got that arse about face. People can think what they like
in the privacy of their own heads. It's when those thoughts become
actions that it matters. I know not nor do I care to know what darkness
lurks behind the eyes of the local butcher, baker and candlestick maker
(yes, we do have one!) It would very quickly become an issue if I heard
that they were refusing custom to people on the basis of colour or some
other focus of prejudice or, as in the case of a market stall recently, they
were draping themselves in offensive flags.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-06 16:45:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06 17:56:43 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> said:

>
> [ ... ]
>
> Huh? You've got that arse about face.

Confirming something Tony said earlier, that one sentence was
sufficient for me to guess (correctly) who was writing.

> People can think what they like
> in the privacy of their own heads.

Not if Big Brother gets his way.

> It's when those thoughts become
> actions that it matters. I know not nor do I care to know what darkness
> lurks behind the eyes of the local butcher, baker and candlestick maker
> (yes, we do have one!) It would very quickly become an issue if I heard
> that they were refusing custom to people on the basis of colour or some
> other focus of prejudice or, as in the case of a market stall recently, they
> were draping themselves in offensive flags.


--
athel
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 20:14:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This thread has about run its course, so I want to add some facets
that I didn't think to add in the original.

Ken, the mechanic and owner of the shop, has never been someone that I
would describe as "genial". While he was, in my opinion, rude to the
potential customer, he borders on rude in any conversation.

Ken works by appointment only. Only an established customer would be
able to just pop in and have something done. I'd made my appointment
for an oil change the week before.

Ken, obviously, is not fond of illegal immigrants and is one of those
people who thinks an Hispanic that doesn't speak English is an illegal
immigrant. While we haven't had that conversation, I suspect he
thinks that all Mexicans are here illegally.

Ken's bigotry does not extend to African-Americans. He does work for
two local African American churches. Their vans are often seen in his
garage area. I don't know how he feels about other groups.

I've been going to Ken for about 15 years. I am one of those
drive-it-until-it-drops automobile people, and drive a 2002 Toyota
Rav4 with 138,000 miles on it. I keep it well maintained.

I would rather deal with a bigot than a car salesman at a new car
dealership.

I'm not about to change mechanics. Choosing one's mechanic is like
choosing one's doctor, lawyer, or accountant. If you finally find a
good one, the only reason to change is if that one is incarcerated or
dead.

The only difference between Ken and my doctor, lawyer, and accountant
is that I *know* how Ken stands on illegal immigration, and that
knowledge has just been recently acquired.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 20:23:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:14:18 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> This thread has about run its course, so I want to add some facets
> that I didn't think to add in the original.
>
> Ken, the mechanic and owner of the shop, has never been someone that I
> would describe as "genial". While he was, in my opinion, rude to the
> potential customer, he borders on rude in any conversation.
>
> Ken works by appointment only. Only an established customer would be
> able to just pop in and have something done. I'd made my appointment
> for an oil change the week before.
>
> Ken, obviously, is not fond of illegal immigrants and is one of those
> people who thinks an Hispanic that doesn't speak English is an illegal
> immigrant. While we haven't had that conversation, I suspect he
> thinks that all Mexicans are here illegally.
>
> Ken's bigotry does not extend to African-Americans. He does work for
> two local African American churches. Their vans are often seen in his
> garage area. I don't know how he feels about other groups.
>
> I've been going to Ken for about 15 years. I am one of those
> drive-it-until-it-drops automobile people, and drive a 2002 Toyota
> Rav4 with 138,000 miles on it. I keep it well maintained.
>
> I would rather deal with a bigot than a car salesman at a new car
> dealership.
>
> I'm not about to change mechanics. Choosing one's mechanic is like
> choosing one's doctor, lawyer, or accountant. If you finally find a
> good one, the only reason to change is if that one is incarcerated or
> dead.
>
> The only difference between Ken and my doctor, lawyer, and accountant
> is that I *know* how Ken stands on illegal immigration, and that
> knowledge has just been recently acquired.

You have missed the point of _every_ response to you. You do not merely
know "how he stands." You know that he _acts_ on that stand in a bigoted
and, if it weren't Florida, likely illegal way. That is a huge difference.
Tak To
2018-09-07 07:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/6/2018 4:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> This thread has about run its course, so I want to add some facets
> that I didn't think to add in the original.
>
> Ken, the mechanic and owner of the shop, has never been someone that I
> would describe as "genial". While he was, in my opinion, rude to the
> potential customer, he borders on rude in any conversation.
>
> Ken works by appointment only. Only an established customer would be
> able to just pop in and have something done. I'd made my appointment
> for an oil change the week before.
>
> Ken, obviously, is not fond of illegal immigrants and is one of those
> people who thinks an Hispanic that doesn't speak English is an illegal
> immigrant. While we haven't had that conversation, I suspect he
> thinks that all Mexicans are here illegally.
>
> Ken's bigotry does not extend to African-Americans. He does work for
> two local African American churches. Their vans are often seen in his
> garage area. I don't know how he feels about other groups.
>
> I've been going to Ken for about 15 years. I am one of those
> drive-it-until-it-drops automobile people, and drive a 2002 Toyota
> Rav4 with 138,000 miles on it. I keep it well maintained.
>
> I would rather deal with a bigot than a car salesman at a new car
> dealership.
>
> I'm not about to change mechanics. Choosing one's mechanic is like
> choosing one's doctor, lawyer, or accountant. If you finally find a
> good one, the only reason to change is if that one is incarcerated or
> dead.
>
> The only difference between Ken and my doctor, lawyer, and accountant
> is that I *know* how Ken stands on illegal immigration, and that
> knowledge has just been recently acquired.

Wait, this is new information. Let me make sure

- All you heard from Ken was his ranting about illegal
immigrants. You have not heard his opinions on Hispanic
legal immigrants or citizens.

- The customer that was turned away appeared to be an
illegal immigrant, but neither you nor ken was sure
of his legal status.

Is the above correct?

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2018-09-07 14:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 03:21:09 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/6/2018 4:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> This thread has about run its course, so I want to add some facets
>> that I didn't think to add in the original.
>>
>> Ken, the mechanic and owner of the shop, has never been someone that I
>> would describe as "genial". While he was, in my opinion, rude to the
>> potential customer, he borders on rude in any conversation.
>>
>> Ken works by appointment only. Only an established customer would be
>> able to just pop in and have something done. I'd made my appointment
>> for an oil change the week before.
>>
>> Ken, obviously, is not fond of illegal immigrants and is one of those
>> people who thinks an Hispanic that doesn't speak English is an illegal
>> immigrant. While we haven't had that conversation, I suspect he
>> thinks that all Mexicans are here illegally.
>>
>> Ken's bigotry does not extend to African-Americans. He does work for
>> two local African American churches. Their vans are often seen in his
>> garage area. I don't know how he feels about other groups.
>>
>> I've been going to Ken for about 15 years. I am one of those
>> drive-it-until-it-drops automobile people, and drive a 2002 Toyota
>> Rav4 with 138,000 miles on it. I keep it well maintained.
>>
>> I would rather deal with a bigot than a car salesman at a new car
>> dealership.
>>
>> I'm not about to change mechanics. Choosing one's mechanic is like
>> choosing one's doctor, lawyer, or accountant. If you finally find a
>> good one, the only reason to change is if that one is incarcerated or
>> dead.
>>
>> The only difference between Ken and my doctor, lawyer, and accountant
>> is that I *know* how Ken stands on illegal immigration, and that
>> knowledge has just been recently acquired.
>
>Wait, this is new information. Let me make sure
>
> - All you heard from Ken was his ranting about illegal
> immigrants. You have not heard his opinions on Hispanic
> legal immigrants or citizens.

Correct, except he said he would not hire someone to have a
Spanish-speaking person available. Not stated, but implied, is that
he wouldn't hire an Hispanic. Not stated and not known is whether or
not any of his regular customers are Hispanic. His rant was based on
his suspicion that anyone who can't speak English is an illegal
immigrant. If someone made an appointment on the phone, speaking
English, I assume Ken would not have a problem working on their car
even if the person turned up wearing a serape and was a member of a
mariachi group.
>
> - The customer that was turned away appeared to be an
> illegal immigrant, but neither you nor ken was sure
> of his legal status.

Correct. It was the fact that the person couldn't speak English that
made Ken think he was illegal.

In fact, it is not at all unusual for a person in this area to have no
command, or a very limited command, of English even though they are
legal or even a natural born citizen of the US. There are sections of
this city where there are Puerto Ricans who have lived here for many
years, or were born here, but don't speak English. Not that they are
illegals, but I'm not sure Ken could tell the difference between a
Puerto Rican and a Mexican.

>Is the above correct?

There is a large population of Mexicans in this area who are here
legally on work visas. We wouldn't have workers to pick, plant, and
tend the crops without them. We wouldn't have clean rooms or made
beds in the hotels without them.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2018-09-08 03:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/09/18 00:08, Tony Cooper wrote:

> In fact, it is not at all unusual for a person in this area to have
> no command, or a very limited command, of English even though they
> are legal or even a natural born citizen of the US. There are
> sections of this city where there are Puerto Ricans who have lived
> here for many years, or were born here, but don't speak English. Not
> that they are illegals, but I'm not sure Ken could tell the
> difference between a Puerto Rican and a Mexican.

Certainly your president can't. When Puerto Rico had a major hurricane
disaster, Trump initially refused aid on the grounds that US citizens
should have priority over foreigners.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Yates
2018-09-06 12:53:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:19:05 +0200, occam <***@invalid.nix> wrote:

>On 06/09/2018 01:22, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>
>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>> too.)
>>>>
>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>
>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>
>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>
>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>>
>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>>> aggressively.
>>>
>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>>> subject again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All it takes for evil to triumph ....
>>
>
>Bullshit. I take my car to the mechanic for his knowledge of car
>engines, not for his political views.

This is about flagrant racial bigotry, not whether Ds or Rs should be
in office. Would you patronize "Goering's Garage: we fix only cars
from the Fatherland"?

>If I were to boycott everyone I did not agree with on *all* levels -
>ethics, politics, know-how, language etc, I'd have no dealings with most
>of the people around me. That includes AUE posters.

Okay.
Janet
2018-09-06 12:59:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@invalid.nix says...
> Subject: Re: OT: What would you do?
> From: occam <***@invalid.nix>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> On 06/09/2018 01:22, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 23:58:26 UTC+1, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> >>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >>>
> >>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> >>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> >>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >>>
> >>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> >>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> >>> too.)
> >>>
> >>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> >>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> >>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> >>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >>>
> >>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> >>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >>>
> >>> Would you continue to patronize Ken,

No.

Janet.
Quinn C
2018-09-08 17:06:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
* occam:

> Bullshit. I take my car to the mechanic for his knowledge of car
> engines, not for his political views.
>
> If I were to boycott everyone I did not agree with on *all* levels -
> ethics, politics, know-how, language etc, I'd have no dealings with most
> of the people around me. That includes AUE posters.

How many AUE posters have you hired for paid work? Or voted into public
office? This kind of boycott isn't about just sharing the same air (or
collection of electrons) with someone.

--
Be afraid of the lame - They'll inherit your legs
Be afraid of the old - They'll inherit your souls
-- Regina Spektor, Après moi
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 03:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:26 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> > Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >
> > I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> > that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> > that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >
> > Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> > was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> > too.)
> >
> > When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> > in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> > watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> > while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >
> > OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> > bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >
> > Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> > doesn't come across as a bigot?
> >
> > I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> > don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> > outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> > bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
> >
> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>
> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
> aggressively.
>
> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
> subject again.

What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
Paul Carmichael
2018-09-06 07:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 05:20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>
> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>

A gay cake? Wow.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-06 10:40:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 09:42:46 +0200, Paul Carmichael
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 06/09/18 05:20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>
>> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>>
>
>A gay cake? Wow.

UK:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43955734

'Gay cake': Ashers Bakery case heard at Supreme Court

1 May 2018


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 11:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 3:42:49 AM UTC-4, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> On 06/09/18 05:20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>
> A gay cake? Wow.

Not keeping up with the news Over There?

Also not parsing appropriately, it seems.

The ambiguity was intentional.
Paul Carmichael
2018-09-06 14:07:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 13:44, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 3:42:49 AM UTC-4, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> On 06/09/18 05:20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>>
>> A gay cake? Wow.
>
> Not keeping up with the news Over There?

No.

> Also not parsing appropriately, it seems.
>
> The ambiguity was intentional.
>
" "

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Cheryl
2018-09-06 09:30:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 20:20:06 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:
> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?

I don't have a problem with that. Nor with the pregnancy advice group
that got expelled from a university campus for giving reasons a
client shouldn't choose abortion. They're both expressing unpopular
opinions.

--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 11:45:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 5:30:16 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 20:20:06 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> > What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>
> I don't have a problem with that. Nor with the pregnancy advice group
> that got expelled from a university campus for giving reasons a
> client shouldn't choose abortion. They're both expressing unpopular
> opinions.

Well, you don't have a First Amendment.
Tak To
2018-09-07 05:58:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/5/2018 11:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:26 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>
>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>
>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>> too.)
>>>
>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>
>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>
>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>
>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>
>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>
>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>> aggressively.
>>
>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>> subject again.
>
> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?

The baker has the right to reject cake designs, but not
customers based on their sexual orientation.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-07 12:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 01:58:06 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:

>On 9/5/2018 11:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:26 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>
>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>> too.)
>>>>
>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>
>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>
>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>
>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>>
>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>>> aggressively.
>>>
>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>>> subject again.
>>
>> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>
>The baker has the right to reject cake designs,

That varies between legal jurisdictions.

The analogy I make is that of a maker of cakes with menaingful designs
on them to someone working in a place printing books, newpapers, etc.
In the latter case I don't accept that a worker has the right to refuse
to print something if he/she disagrees with the content.
To my mind the principle of "freedom of expression" means that someone
should not interfere with or impede someone else's ability to express
themselves legally.

There are at least two ironies in the "Gay Cake" case that is still
ongoing in Northern Ireland.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43955734

The owners of a Northern Ireland bakery found to have discriminated
for refusing to make a "gay cake" were forced to act against their
religious beliefs, the Supreme Court has heard.

Ashers Bakery is challenging the ruling over its decision not to
make a cake iced with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage"...

The first irony is that the news media are expected to report the slogan
regardless of whether journalists or printers agree with it. There is
nothing illegal about the wording.

The second is that the lawyer with, his legal team, representing the
cake makers in court is required by law to present the cake-makers case
even if he doesn't share their beliefs.

> but not
>customers based on their sexual orientation.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-07 12:22:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 7 September 2018 13:07:51 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 01:58:06 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>
> >On 9/5/2018 11:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:26 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> >>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> >>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> >>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> >>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> >>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> >>>> too.)
> >>>>
> >>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> >>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> >>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> >>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> >>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> >>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> >>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> >>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> >>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
> >>>>
> >>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
> >>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
> >>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
> >>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
> >>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
> >>>
> >>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
> >>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
> >>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
> >>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
> >>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
> >>> aggressively.
> >>>
> >>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
> >>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
> >>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
> >>> subject again.
> >>
> >> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
> >
> >The baker has the right to reject cake designs,
>
> That varies between legal jurisdictions.
>
> The analogy I make is that of a maker of cakes with menaingful designs
> on them to someone working in a place printing books, newpapers, etc.
> In the latter case I don't accept that a worker has the right to refuse
> to print something if he/she disagrees with the content.
> To my mind the principle of "freedom of expression" means that someone
> should not interfere with or impede someone else's ability to express
> themselves legally.
>
> There are at least two ironies in the "Gay Cake" case that is still
> ongoing in Northern Ireland.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43955734
>
> The owners of a Northern Ireland bakery found to have discriminated
> for refusing to make a "gay cake" were forced to act against their
> religious beliefs, the Supreme Court has heard.
>
> Ashers Bakery is challenging the ruling over its decision not to
> make a cake iced with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage"...
>
> The first irony is that the news media are expected to report the slogan
> regardless of whether journalists or printers agree with it. There is
> nothing illegal about the wording.
>
> The second is that the lawyer with, his legal team, representing the
> cake makers in court is required by law to present the cake-makers case
> even if he doesn't share their beliefs.
>
> > but not
> >customers based on their sexual orientation.
>

The lawyer has absolute rights to refuse a brief in the first place or
to recuse themselves at any point if no longer able to represent
the case fairly or in good conscience. Alternatively the lawyer could
admit to not sharing the beliefs but argue that such an opinion is
irrelevant under law protecting such beliefs. In many ways I suspect
that this 'hostile' lawyer argument would be most effective in Supreme
Court where it is the legal argument and the legal argument alone
that matters.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-07 14:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Continuing on this very off-topic subject...

I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
with.

In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
own personal prejudices.

Does that make me any different from Ken?

Should I be ashamed of myself, as someone has suggested because I'll
continue to do business with Ken? Isn't refusal based on personal
prejudices a two-way thing?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 14:40:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:17:07 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Continuing on this very off-topic subject...

It was you who chose to publicize your suborning of bigotry.

> I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
> fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
> result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
> with.

Apparently Chick-fil-A is no longer considered evil, though I don't know
why, but they don't have many outlets around here, and I'm not into fast-
food chicken anyway, so it doesn't much concern me.

> In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
> own personal prejudices.
>
> Does that make me any different from Ken?

Yes. These instances are based on the stated policies (or former policies)
of the businesses in question. That is nothing like Ken's actions against
individuals based on imagined personal characteristics.

> Should I be ashamed of myself, as someone has suggested because I'll
> continue to do business with Ken? Isn't refusal based on personal
> prejudices a two-way thing?

There's that dehumanizing "someone" used to refer to me, again. Yes, you
should be ashamed, and it obviously does bother you, or you wouldn't have
asked the group for advice. Your feeling of shame will go away when you
resolve to find another car mechanic. You don't _need_ to tell him why,
but maybe he's heard it from other former customers as well and might
start rethinking his attitudes (thought that's unlikely).
Peter Moylan
2018-09-08 03:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/09/18 00:17, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
>
> I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
> fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian
> values" result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly
> disagree with.
>
> In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of
> my own personal prejudices.
>
> Does that make me any different from Ken?
>
> Should I be ashamed of myself, as someone has suggested because I'll
> continue to do business with Ken? Isn't refusal based on personal
> prejudices a two-way thing?

There's a coffee chain here (Gloria Jean) that many people boycotted
because it had links to the Hillsong church. For a while I drank their
coffee, because they were the only coffee suppliers on the university
campus, but it always bothered me a bit. Were they putting their
fundamentalist values into the coffee?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 12:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 11:55:21 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> There's a coffee chain here (Gloria Jean) that many people boycotted
> because it had links to the Hillsong church. For a while I drank their
> coffee, because they were the only coffee suppliers on the university
> campus, but it always bothered me a bit. Were they putting their
> fundamentalist values into the coffee?

Gloria Jean is in malls here. No one has suggested that they have a
connection to an obscure Australian sect, or to anything more prominent
Over Here (like Hobby Lobby or, formerly, Chick-fil-A).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Jean%27s_Coffees#Controversies

The question is whether they were putting their "fundamentalist values"
into their customer service (or refusal of service).
Tak To
2018-09-08 04:31:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
>
> I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
> fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
> result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
> with.
>
> In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
> own personal prejudices.
>
> Does that make me any different from Ken?

Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
of crime".

I assume you have proofs that the "employee rules and
other actions" (ER & OA) exist. So you are not guilty of
that.

OTOH, you might want to consider whether <ER & OA> are
indeed "crimes" in that they hurt the employees or the
customers. I don't have enough details to say one way
or the other.

In addition you might want to consider if your "punishment"
fits the "crime".

> Should I be ashamed of myself, as someone has suggested because I'll
> continue to do business with Ken? Isn't refusal based on personal
> prejudices a two-way thing?

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
David Kleinecke
2018-09-08 04:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 9:31:52 PM UTC-7, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
> >
> > I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
> > fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
> > result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
> > with.
> >
> > In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
> > own personal prejudices.
> >
> > Does that make me any different from Ken?
>
> Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
> being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
> Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
> of crime".

I can remember when a married woman should not work
because she would be robbing a man of a job.

This is not an improvement.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 12:40:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:52:07 AM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 9:31:52 PM UTC-7, Tak To wrote:
> > On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > > Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
> > >
> > > I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
> > > fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
> > > result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
> > > with.
> > >
> > > In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
> > > own personal prejudices.
> > >
> > > Does that make me any different from Ken?
> >
> > Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
> > being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
> > Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
> > of crime".
>
> I can remember when a married woman should not work
> because she would be robbing a man of a job.
>
> This is not an improvement.

"Rosie the Riveter" mostly went back into the kitchen when all those
returning G.I.s wanted their jobs (and more, since many had been drafted
right out of high school) back.

According to an article on a stamp that used the "Rosie the Riveter"
image, that wasn't actually a WWII propaganda poster, but an image
that was later retrojected into that mindset (rather like "Keep Calm
and Carry On").
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-08 13:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 8 September 2018 13:40:59 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:52:07 AM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 9:31:52 PM UTC-7, Tak To wrote:
> > > On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > > > Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
> > > >
> > > > I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
> > > > fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
> > > > result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
> > > > with.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
> > > > own personal prejudices.
> > > >
> > > > Does that make me any different from Ken?
> > >
> > > Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
> > > being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
> > > Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
> > > of crime".
> >
> > I can remember when a married woman should not work
> > because she would be robbing a man of a job.
> >
> > This is not an improvement.
>
> "Rosie the Riveter" mostly went back into the kitchen when all those
> returning G.I.s wanted their jobs (and more, since many had been drafted
> right out of high school) back.
>
> According to an article on a stamp that used the "Rosie the Riveter"
> image, that wasn't actually a WWII propaganda poster, but an image
> that was later retrojected into that mindset (rather like "Keep Calm
> and Carry On").

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. The "We Can Do
It" poster was certainly published during the war. It was commissioned
by the Westinghouse Company's War Production Coordinating Committee
in 1942. Rosie the Riveter also came into existence in that year in a song
of that name which was a US hit. These two events, however, were
completely independent of each other and it was only after the war that
the subject of the poster became identified with Rosie. The first actual
image of Rosie was a painting by Norman Rockwell published as a cover
for the Saturday Evening Post for Memorial Day 1943.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 04:53:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
>>
>> I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
>> fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
>> result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
>> with.
>>
>> In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
>> own personal prejudices.
>>
>> Does that make me any different from Ken?
>
>Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
>being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
>Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
>of crime".
>
We don't know that. We know he doesn't like illegal immigrants, but
we don't know why. It could be simply because they are illegally in
this country. Aren't we supposed to not like lawbreakers?

What his guilty of is making an assumption of illegality based on
appearance and the person's lack of English. I don't think that's a
crime, though.

>I assume you have proofs that the "employee rules and
>other actions" (ER & OA) exist. So you are not guilty of
>that.
>
>OTOH, you might want to consider whether <ER & OA> are
>indeed "crimes" in that they hurt the employees or the
>customers. I don't have enough details to say one way
>or the other.

>In addition you might want to consider if your "punishment"
>fits the "crime".

Whoa! What "punishment" am I meting out? I don't patronize those two
organizations. Is that punishment? There are hundreds of other
businesses in this town that I don't patronize. Some because I don't
know they exist, some because I don't need their product, some because
I don't like the look of the place (eg: a restaurant), some because
they are not convenient to me, etc.

Is not patronizing a business a wrongful act? It's a worrisome
concept. All those millions of people who won't use Microsoft are
committing wrongful acts.

And, if that's the case, then both Ken and the Mexican were punished.
After all, the Mexican didn't patronize Ken. Even-steven?

>> Should I be ashamed of myself, as someone has suggested because I'll
>> continue to do business with Ken? Isn't refusal based on personal
>> prejudices a two-way thing?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2018-09-08 06:58:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/8/2018 12:53 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
>>>
>>> I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
>>> fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
>>> result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
>>> with.
>>>
>>> In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
>>> own personal prejudices.
>>>
>>> Does that make me any different from Ken?
>>
>> Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
>> being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
>> Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
>> of crime".
>>
> We don't know that.

You mentioned that Ken said something about job stealing
(by Hispanics). It seemed a reasonable conclusion.

> We know he doesn't like illegal immigrants, but
> we don't know why. It could be simply because they are illegally in
> this country. Aren't we supposed to not like lawbreakers?

I wasn't thinking about the illegal aspect.

> What his guilty of is making an assumption of illegality based on
> appearance and the person's lack of English. I don't think that's a
> crime, though.

I agree. Making assumptions per se is not a "crime".

>> I assume you have proofs that the "employee rules and
>> other actions" (ER & OA) exist. So you are not guilty of
>> that.
>>
>> OTOH, you might want to consider whether <ER & OA> are
>> indeed "crimes" in that they hurt the employees or the
>> customers. I don't have enough details to say one way
>> or the other.
>
>> In addition you might want to consider if your "punishment"
>> fits the "crime".
>
> Whoa! What "punishment" am I meting out? I don't patronize those two
> organizations. Is that punishment?

"Not patronizing" is not "punishment". "Refusing to consider
patronizing" is.

> There are hundreds of other
> businesses in this town that I don't patronize. Some because I don't
> know they exist, some because I don't need their product, some because
> I don't like the look of the place (eg: a restaurant), some because
> they are not convenient to me, etc.
>
> Is not patronizing a business a wrongful act? It's a worrisome
> concept. All those millions of people who won't use Microsoft are
> committing wrongful acts.

See above.

> And, if that's the case, then both Ken and the Mexican were punished.
> After all, the Mexican didn't patronize Ken. Even-steven?

That's not a topic of interest in the present context.
"Punishment" does not have its usual meaning. It is
really "moral (re)action".

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 16:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 02:58:56 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/8/2018 12:53 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
>>>>
>>>> I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
>>>> fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
>>>> result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
>>>> own personal prejudices.
>>>>
>>>> Does that make me any different from Ken?
>>>
>>> Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
>>> being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
>>> Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
>>> of crime".
>>>
>> We don't know that.
>
>You mentioned that Ken said something about job stealing
>(by Hispanics). It seemed a reasonable conclusion.
>
I don't think I did. I'm not going to pore through my posts, but I
don't recall mentioning that at all. As far as I recall, I quoted him
on "Not on my watch!" and commented on his opinion of illegal
immigrants, but not about "job stealing".

>> We know he doesn't like illegal immigrants, but
>> we don't know why. It could be simply because they are illegally in
>> this country. Aren't we supposed to not like lawbreakers?
>
>I wasn't thinking about the illegal aspect.

As far as I can tell, that's the whole basis of Ken's objections. He
thinks anyone who does not speak English is an illegal immigrant.

>
>> What his guilty of is making an assumption of illegality based on
>> appearance and the person's lack of English. I don't think that's a
>> crime, though.
>
>I agree. Making assumptions per se is not a "crime".
>
>>> In addition you might want to consider if your "punishment"
>>> fits the "crime".
>>
>> Whoa! What "punishment" am I meting out? I don't patronize those two
>> organizations. Is that punishment?
>
>"Not patronizing" is not "punishment". "Refusing to consider
>patronizing" is.

Thought crimes, then? I can't come up with a single logical way to
consider refusal to patronize a business, or refusal to consider
patronizing a business, as anything remotely like a crime or
punishment. It's absurd.

>
>> There are hundreds of other
>> businesses in this town that I don't patronize. Some because I don't
>> know they exist, some because I don't need their product, some because
>> I don't like the look of the place (eg: a restaurant), some because
>> they are not convenient to me, etc.
>>
>> Is not patronizing a business a wrongful act? It's a worrisome
>> concept. All those millions of people who won't use Microsoft are
>> committing wrongful acts.
>
>See above.
>
>> And, if that's the case, then both Ken and the Mexican were punished.
>> After all, the Mexican didn't patronize Ken. Even-steven?
>
>That's not a topic of interest in the present context.
>"Punishment" does not have its usual meaning. It is
>really "moral (re)action".

But a perfectly normal decision that all of us make every day. We all
decide what businesses we will patronize and what businesses we won't.
Sometimes that is based on some moral aspect, but it still doesn't
fall into "punishment" by any definition.

If anything, the "punishment" can be to the person who doesn't
patronize a business for moral reasons. If I would refuse to
patronize Ken for moral reasons, I'm the loser, not Ken. I lose the
services of a good and trusted mechanic. He wouldn't notice the loss.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Janet
2018-09-08 20:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@invalid.com says...
>
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 02:58:56 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9/8/2018 12:53 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>> Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
> >>>>
> >>>> I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
> >>>> fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
> >>>> result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
> >>>> with.
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
> >>>> own personal prejudices.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does that make me any different from Ken?
> >>>
> >>> Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
> >>> being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
> >>> Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
> >>> of crime".
> >>>
> >> We don't know that.
> >
> >You mentioned that Ken said something about job stealing
> >(by Hispanics). It seemed a reasonable conclusion.
> >
> I don't think I did. I'm not going to pore through my posts, but I
> don't recall mentioning that at all. As far as I recall, I quoted him
> on "Not on my watch!" and commented on his opinion of illegal
> immigrants, but not about "job stealing".


You said

" When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs
someone in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on
my watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like."

Janet.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 21:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 21:25:08 +0100, Janet <***@home.com> wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
>@invalid.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 02:58:56 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 9/8/2018 12:53 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 9/7/2018 10:17 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >>>> Continuing on this very off-topic subject...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I refuse to patronize Hobby Lobby (a crafts store) or Chick-fil-A (a
>> >>>> fast-food chain) because the two ownership group's "Christian values"
>> >>>> result in employee rules and other actions that I strongly disagree
>> >>>> with.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In other words, I'm refusing to do business with a place because of my
>> >>>> own personal prejudices.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Does that make me any different from Ken?
>> >>>
>> >>> Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
>> >>> being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
>> >>> Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
>> >>> of crime".
>> >>>
>> >> We don't know that.
>> >
>> >You mentioned that Ken said something about job stealing
>> >(by Hispanics). It seemed a reasonable conclusion.
>> >
>> I don't think I did. I'm not going to pore through my posts, but I
>> don't recall mentioning that at all. As far as I recall, I quoted him
>> on "Not on my watch!" and commented on his opinion of illegal
>> immigrants, but not about "job stealing".
>
>
> You said
>
> " When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs
>someone in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on
>my watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like."
>
OK, I didn't remember that comment I made. I retract.

See how it's done, PTD? You could do "exactly the same way".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 12:44:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:

> >Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
> >being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
> >Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
> >of crime".
>
> We don't know that. We know he doesn't like illegal immigrants, but
> we don't know why. It could be simply because they are illegally in
> this country. Aren't we supposed to not like lawbreakers?
>
> What his guilty of is making an assumption of illegality based on
> appearance and the person's lack of English. I don't think that's a
> crime, though.

How does he feel about undocumented persons ("illegal immigrants") from
Ireland, who, despite all of Ted Kennedy's perpetual attempts to increase
the quotas for Irish immigration over decades, are rife in, e.g., NYC
(and presumably Boston)?
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 16:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 05:44:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
>> >being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
>> >Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
>> >of crime".
>>
>> We don't know that. We know he doesn't like illegal immigrants, but
>> we don't know why. It could be simply because they are illegally in
>> this country. Aren't we supposed to not like lawbreakers?
>>
>> What his guilty of is making an assumption of illegality based on
>> appearance and the person's lack of English. I don't think that's a
>> crime, though.
>
>How does he feel about undocumented persons ("illegal immigrants") from
>Ireland, who, despite all of Ted Kennedy's perpetual attempts to increase
>the quotas for Irish immigration over decades, are rife in, e.g., NYC
>(and presumably Boston)?

Can you get any sillier? We have a person in the Orlando area who is
making assumptions based on appearance and inability to speak English.

And you want to project that to the Irish in NYC?

But, if you want me to assume something, I would assume that anyone
who is opposed to illegal immigrants in the US would also have a
negative opinion of anyone from another country who has remained here
after their visa has expired.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 17:04:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:33:28 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 05:44:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
> >> >being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
> >> >Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
> >> >of crime".
> >>
> >> We don't know that. We know he doesn't like illegal immigrants, but
> >> we don't know why. It could be simply because they are illegally in
> >> this country. Aren't we supposed to not like lawbreakers?
> >>
> >> What his guilty of is making an assumption of illegality based on
> >> appearance and the person's lack of English. I don't think that's a
> >> crime, though.
> >
> >How does he feel about undocumented persons ("illegal immigrants") from
> >Ireland, who, despite all of Ted Kennedy's perpetual attempts to increase
> >the quotas for Irish immigration over decades, are rife in, e.g., NYC
> >(and presumably Boston)?
>
> Can you get any sillier? We have a person in the Orlando area who is
> making assumptions based on appearance and inability to speak English.
>
> And you want to project that to the Irish in NYC?

Did you not say that what really bothered him was "illegal immigrants,"
and that he simply assumed that any non-English-speaker was one? Would
English-speaking "illegal immigrants" be just peachy-keen for him? What
if they were from Jamaica, or Trinidad, or Iran?

> But, if you want me to assume something, I would assume that anyone
> who is opposed to illegal immigrants in the US would also have a
> negative opinion of anyone from another country who has remained here
> after their visa has expired.

Does someone like Ken even know what a "student visa" or a "tourist visa"
is? NB I have never had a separately-applied-for visa to travel to any
country I've visited (i.e. UK, Ireland, Israel, Belgium, Germany), and
the fine print on the stamps in the passport mentions "six months." (Also
Canada, but not since passports became required after 9/11.)
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 21:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 10:04:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:33:28 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 05:44:37 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:31:47 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Ken thinks that a Hispanic man, purely by the virtue of
>> >> >being Hispanic, must have rob someone else of a job.
>> >> >Thus he is guilty of "meting out punishment without proof
>> >> >of crime".
>> >>
>> >> We don't know that. We know he doesn't like illegal immigrants, but
>> >> we don't know why. It could be simply because they are illegally in
>> >> this country. Aren't we supposed to not like lawbreakers?
>> >>
>> >> What his guilty of is making an assumption of illegality based on
>> >> appearance and the person's lack of English. I don't think that's a
>> >> crime, though.
>> >
>> >How does he feel about undocumented persons ("illegal immigrants") from
>> >Ireland, who, despite all of Ted Kennedy's perpetual attempts to increase
>> >the quotas for Irish immigration over decades, are rife in, e.g., NYC
>> >(and presumably Boston)?
>>
>> Can you get any sillier? We have a person in the Orlando area who is
>> making assumptions based on appearance and inability to speak English.
>>
>> And you want to project that to the Irish in NYC?
>
>Did you not say that what really bothered him was "illegal immigrants,"
>and that he simply assumed that any non-English-speaker was one?

In my experience, the Irish speak English. Even with a thick brogue,
it's still English.

Can you get any sillier?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2018-09-08 02:54:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 8:07 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 01:58:06 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2018 11:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:26 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>> too.)
>>>>>
>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>>
>>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>>>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>>>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>>>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>>>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>>>
>>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>>>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>>>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>>>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>>>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>>>> aggressively.
>>>>
>>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>>>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>>>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>>>> subject again.
>>>
>>> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>>
>> The baker has the right to reject cake designs,
>> but not customers based on their sexual orientation.

Let me clarify. The baker cannot reject a customer and
claim that he is just rejecting the design. For example,
he cannot reject a design from X while accepting a very
similar design from Y. In an actual case the prosecutor
would try to prove that the baker's pattern of acceptance
and rejection constitutes a discriminatory behavior
against a protected group; and the defendant will try to
prove otherwise. It is not cut and dry.

> That varies between legal jurisdictions.

Naturally.
> The analogy I make is that of a maker of cakes with menaingful designs
> on them to someone working in a place printing books, newpapers, etc.

In my case, I assume "baker" to be the owner of the business.
So when he says no to a cake design, he is saying no to the
*customer*. Whereas in your case, "someone working in a place
printing books" seems to be an employee of the print shop.
So when he says no, he is saying no to his *employer*. There
is a bit of difference between the two situations.

> In the latter case I don't accept that a worker has the right to refuse
> to print something if he/she disagrees with the content.

The worker can refuse the assignment but can also be fired.
Whether such a firing constitutes an infringement on the
worker's right to practice religion is a separate issue.

The print shop owner, like the baker, can in principle refuse
the order but is subject to the same behavioral pattern
scrutiny as outlined above.

> To my mind the principle of "freedom of expression" means that someone
> should not interfere with or impede someone else's ability to express
> themselves legally.

I don't think the argument would fly in the US. A private print
shop is not a public channel.

> There are at least two ironies in the "Gay Cake" case that is still
> ongoing in Northern Ireland.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43955734
>
> The owners of a Northern Ireland bakery found to have discriminated
> for refusing to make a "gay cake" were forced to act against their
> religious beliefs, the Supreme Court has heard.
>
> Ashers Bakery is challenging the ruling over its decision not to
> make a cake iced with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage"...
>
> The first irony is that the news media are expected to report the slogan
> regardless of whether journalists or printers agree with it. There is
> nothing illegal about the wording.
>
> The second is that the lawyer with, his legal team, representing the
> cake makers in court is required by law to present the cake-makers case
> even if he doesn't share their beliefs.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Richard Yates
2018-09-08 04:23:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 22:54:48 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>Let me clarify. The baker cannot reject a customer and
>claim that he is just rejecting the design. For example,
>he cannot reject a design from X while accepting a very
>similar design from Y. In an actual case the prosecutor
>would try to prove that the baker's pattern of acceptance
>and rejection constitutes a discriminatory behavior
>against a protected group; and the defendant will try to
>prove otherwise. It is not cut and dry.

FYI:
"Many people mishear the standard expression meaning 'set,' 'not open
to change,' as 'cut and dry.' Although this form is listed in the
Oxford English Dictionary, it is definitely less common in
sophisticated writing. The dominant modern usage is 'cut and dried.' "
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/cut-and-dry/
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 12:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:23:50 AM UTC-4, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 22:54:48 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:

> >Let me clarify. The baker cannot reject a customer and
> >claim that he is just rejecting the design. For example,
> >he cannot reject a design from X while accepting a very
> >similar design from Y. In an actual case the prosecutor
> >would try to prove that the baker's pattern of acceptance
> >and rejection constitutes a discriminatory behavior
> >against a protected group; and the defendant will try to
> >prove otherwise. It is not cut and dry.
>
> FYI:
> "Many people mishear the standard expression meaning 'set,' 'not open
> to change,' as 'cut and dry.' Although this form is listed in the
> Oxford English Dictionary, it is definitely less common in
> sophisticated writing. The dominant modern usage is 'cut and dried.' "
> https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/cut-and-dry/

Presumably it's folk etymology that makes it "cut and try," a metaphor
from framing rather than farming.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 05:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 22:54:48 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>Let me clarify. The baker cannot reject a customer and
>claim that he is just rejecting the design. For example,
>he cannot reject a design from X while accepting a very
>similar design from Y. In an actual case the prosecutor
>would try to prove that the baker's pattern of acceptance
>and rejection constitutes a discriminatory behavior
>against a protected group; and the defendant will try to
>prove otherwise. It is not cut and dry.
>
This subject comes up frequently in the photography forums I follow.
Not cake design, but professional wedding photographers who are
unwilling to accept the job of photographing a same-sex wedding.

Quite often someone will comment that they don't want to do this, and
ask how they should handle the request. The sensible replies, in my
opinion, say "Just tell them that you are already booked that day".

I'm not saying that is the right course of action, but it's a
plausible and non-offensive way of turning down a job that they have
personal reasons for not wanting to accept.

The other sensible replies are "Take the job! Their money is a good
as anyone else's!".





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 12:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:39:59 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 22:54:48 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
> >Let me clarify. The baker cannot reject a customer and
> >claim that he is just rejecting the design. For example,
> >he cannot reject a design from X while accepting a very
> >similar design from Y. In an actual case the prosecutor
> >would try to prove that the baker's pattern of acceptance
> >and rejection constitutes a discriminatory behavior
> >against a protected group; and the defendant will try to
> >prove otherwise. It is not cut and dry.
> >
> This subject comes up frequently in the photography forums I follow.
> Not cake design, but professional wedding photographers who are
> unwilling to accept the job of photographing a same-sex wedding.
>
> Quite often someone will comment that they don't want to do this, and
> ask how they should handle the request. The sensible replies, in my
> opinion, say "Just tell them that you are already booked that day".

"Little white lies" are acceptable in business. But when it comes to
illegal discrimination, NOT!

> I'm not saying that is the right course of action, but it's a
> plausible and non-offensive way of turning down a job that they have
> personal reasons for not wanting to accept.

Taking the baker guy's approach, would they do a family portrait of the
couple and their children? (Such as the one being used by Sean Patrick
O'Malley in his hopefully futile campaign for NYS Attorney General
nomination -- hopelessly because he's a D congressman from a potential
swing district, and if he's the AG candidate, he can't also run for
reelection (this not being Texas).) GL couples had children long before
they had marriages.

> The other sensible replies are "Take the job! Their money is a good
> as anyone else's!".

Didn't work with the baker guy.
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-08 19:35:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/18 8:54 PM, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/7/2018 8:07 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 01:58:06 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2018 11:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:58:26 PM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-05 5:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>>> too.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>>>>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>>>>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>>>>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic on
>>>>> the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>>>>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>>>>> disgusting. I don't always succeed in being tolerant by my own
>>>>> definition, but I think I'm getting a bit better at walking a middle
>>>>> path between not implying agreement, and also not rejecting the person
>>>>> aggressively.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed political
>>>>> views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the subject to cars,
>>>>> and if that didn't work, murmur a mild disagreement and change the
>>>>> subject again.
>>>>
>>>> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>>>
>>> The baker has the right to reject cake designs,
>>> but not customers based on their sexual orientation.
>
> Let me clarify. The baker cannot reject a customer and
> claim that he is just rejecting the design. For example,
> he cannot reject a design from X while accepting a very
> similar design from Y. In an actual case the prosecutor
> would try to prove that the baker's pattern of acceptance
> and rejection constitutes a discriminatory behavior
> against a protected group; and the defendant will try to
> prove otherwise. It is not cut and dry.
>
>> That varies between legal jurisdictions.
>
> Naturally.

So when you clarified above, were you talking about Federal law in the
U.S.? The law in some state?

>> The analogy I make is that of a maker of cakes with menaingful designs
>> on them to someone working in a place printing books, newpapers, etc.

I've made that analogy too.

> In my case, I assume "baker" to be the owner of the business.
> So when he says no to a cake design, he is saying no to the
> *customer*. Whereas in your case, "someone working in a place
> printing books" seems to be an employee of the print shop.
> So when he says no, he is saying no to his *employer*. There
> is a bit of difference between the two situations.
>
>> In the latter case I don't accept that a worker has the right to refuse
>> to print something if he/she disagrees with the content.
>
> The worker can refuse the assignment but can also be fired.
> Whether such a firing constitutes an infringement on the
> worker's right to practice religion is a separate issue.
>
> The print shop owner, like the baker, can in principle refuse
> the order but is subject to the same behavioral pattern
> scrutiny as outlined above.
>
>> To my mind the principle of "freedom of expression" means that someone
>> should not interfere with or impede someone else's ability to express
>> themselves legally.
>
> I don't think the argument would fly in the US. A private print
> shop is not a public channel.
...

And in general, the owner of a public channel of expression has the
right to choose content. For instance, newspapers can reject advertising.


--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 13:53:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:58:11 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/5/2018 11:20 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?
>
> The baker has the right to reject cake designs, but not
> customers based on their sexual orientation.

Is that in fact SCOTUS's decision? I don't see how you arrive at that:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

"Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter
"Posted Mon, June 4th, 2018 4:07 pm

"Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-
cake case [Updated]

"[NOTE: This post was updated at 2:17 p.m. after its original publication at 12:04 p.m.]

"The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker
who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple because he
believed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. This was one
of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively
narrow: Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony
Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado
administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by
being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The opinion seemed to
leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s
sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in
protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule
at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling
Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to
freedom of speech."

In other words, Kennedy punted in his very last opinion.
CDB
2018-09-07 19:15:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 1:58 AM, Tak To wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Cheryl P wrote:
>>> Tony Cooper wrote:

>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several
>>>> years. Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.

>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic
>>>> man (one that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's
>>>> English was so broken that he could barely communicate that
>>>> the "Check Engine" light was on.

>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand
>>>> what he was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm
>>>> sure Ken did too.)

>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs
>>>> someone in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted.
>>>> "Not on my watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He
>>>> went on for a while about job stealing, illegal immigration,
>>>> and the like.

>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that
>>>> Ken's a bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I
>>>> don't like bigots.

>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other
>>>> mechanic who doesn't come across as a bigot?

>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with
>>>> him, and I don't like his attitude, but the only thing I
>>>> really know is that he's outspoken about his prejudices. Some
>>>> other mechanic may be equally bigoted, but not so outspoken
>>>> that I'd know.

There has been some talk of that here. New Canadians* have said that
old Canadians are prejudiced, but so polite about it that you
seldom have anything specific to complain about.

We have all the US fuss here too (even the guns, in Toronto). Canadians
suffer from drama envy: they see all that exciting stuff happening just
over the border, and they want to promote it or struggle against it too.
There is a "Black Lives Matter" movement here, in spite of our
policepersons' clear preference for shooting crazy people.
___________________________________
*An expression that marks me as older than dirt.

>>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly
>>> (although I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much
>>> of a generalized slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't
>>> know, because like the theoretical other mechanic, they don't
>>> talk about controversial topic on the job. Sometimes I do know.

>>> I also think that tolerance involves accepting the right of
>>> others to have - and express - opinions I not only disagree
>>> with, but find disgusting. I don't always succeed in being
>>> tolerant by my own definition, but I think I'm getting a bit
>>> better at walking a middle path between not implying agreement,
>>> and also not rejecting the person aggressively.

There is a disturbingly religious cast to a lot of these movements.
People who disagree with you are heretics and must be driven out into
the wilderness. That really only works smoothly when they are a small
minority; if not, you have a religious war.

>>> So, yes, I'd stick with the good mechanic. And if he expressed
>>> political views I strongly disagreed with, I'd try to turn the
>>> subject to cars, and if that didn't work, murmur a mild
>>> disagreement and change the subject again.

>> What about a baker who refuses to make a gay wedding cake?

> The baker has the right to reject cake designs, but not customers
> based on their sexual orientation.

Somebody asked a while ago what a gay wedding cake is. I think that was
a good question. If you insist, for reasons of your own, on getting the
cake from a particular bigoted baker, get a traditional cake and replace
one of the little figures on top with one you like better; then tell the
baker about it. Tell your guests. Tell the papers.

If I find a shop that doesn't want me for a customer, like the
barber-shop I went into where they preferred a Black clientele, I find
another place next time.
Paul Carmichael
2018-09-06 07:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 00:58, Cheryl wrote:

> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although I don't call
> anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized slur and using its meaning).
> Mostly I don't know, because like the theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about
> controversial topic on the job. Sometimes I do know.
>
> I also think that  tolerance involves accepting the right of others to have - and express
> - opinions I not only disagree with, but find disgusting.

Heh. Most of my "friends" are bullfighting fans. I hate them for that, but I have to
co-exist with them. I'm also surrounded by god-botherers, which also makes me somewhat
uncomfortable. Quite a few Brits that I know voted brexit. I want to throw them in the sea
for that.

People mostly aren't very nice. That's not very good English.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-06 09:44:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06 07:40:43 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:

> On 06/09/18 00:58, Cheryl wrote:
>
>> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
>> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
>> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
>> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic
>> on the job. Sometimes I do know.
>>
>> I also think that  tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
>> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
>> disgusting.
>
> Heh. Most of my "friends" are bullfighting fans. I hate them for that,
> but I have to co-exist with them. I'm also surrounded by god-botherers,
> which also makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Quite a few Brits that I
> know voted brexit. I want to throw them in the sea for that.
>
> People mostly aren't very nice. That's not very good English.

I think that's the sensible attitude. Many years ago when I was
hitchhiking to get around England I was picked up by someone who asked
(the first thing he said after I got into his car) was "When do you
think they'll ship out all these Indians?". I took the cowardly course
of saying that I didn't know.

When my wife was still working in Chile most of the people in the
laboratory were Unidad Popular (Allende) supporters, as she had been,
or Democracia Cristiana (Frei) supporters, as the head of the
laboratory had been, but there were one or two who thought the
Dictadora Militar (Pinochet) was an excellent thing. On the whole they
agreed to differ, but that didn't stop them discussing their views.

I expect you know people around you who would love to see Franco's
successors back in power. I'm going to be in Santander next week and
I'll be looking out for remnants of franquismo. A few years in Puerto
de la Cruz de Tenerife I found myself on the Avenida del Generalísimo
Francisco Franco, and was told that Santander was the only other city
in Spain that still had one. If Google Maps is to believed, however,
they're both gone now.


--
athel
Paul Carmichael
2018-09-06 11:13:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 11:44, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-09-06 07:40:43 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:
<snip>
>> Heh. Most of my "friends" are bullfighting fans. I hate them for that, but I have to
>> co-exist with them. I'm also surrounded by god-botherers, which also makes me somewhat
>> uncomfortable. Quite a few Brits that I know voted brexit. I want to throw them in the
>> sea for that.
>>
>> People mostly aren't very nice. That's not very good English.
>
> I think that's the sensible attitude.

<snip>
>
> I expect you know people around you who would love to see Franco's successors back in
> power.

Yes, a few. And just google something like "mejor con franco". A lot of people like living
in a dictatorship. They like to feel "looked after".

> I'm going to be in Santander next week and I'll be looking out for remnants of
> franquismo. A few years in Puerto de la Cruz de Tenerife I found myself on the Avenida del
> Generalísimo Francisco Franco, and was told that Santander was the only other city in
> Spain that still had one. If Google Maps is to believed, however, they're both gone now.
>
>

They just voted to dig Franco up and make the Valley of the Fallen a tribute to the
downfall of the dictatorship, or somesuch. Bit silly really, as the dictatorship didn't
fall down. He just died after naming his successor. Don Juan Carlos de Borbón (etc).

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 11:47:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 5:44:12 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-09-06 07:40:43 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:
>
> > On 06/09/18 00:58, Cheryl wrote:
> >
> >> I probably deal with a lot of people I disagree with strongly (although
> >> I don't call anyone a "bigot"; it's becoming too much of a generalized
> >> slur and using its meaning). Mostly I don't know, because like the
> >> theoretical other mechanic, they don't talk about controversial topic
> >> on the job. Sometimes I do know.
> >>
> >> I also think that  tolerance involves accepting the right of others to
> >> have - and express - opinions I not only disagree with, but find
> >> disgusting.
> >
> > Heh. Most of my "friends" are bullfighting fans. I hate them for that,
> > but I have to co-exist with them. I'm also surrounded by god-botherers,
> > which also makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Quite a few Brits that I
> > know voted brexit. I want to throw them in the sea for that.
> >
> > People mostly aren't very nice. That's not very good English.
>
> I think that's the sensible attitude. Many years ago when I was
> hitchhiking to get around England I was picked up by someone who asked
> (the first thing he said after I got into his car) was "When do you
> think they'll ship out all these Indians?". I took the cowardly course
> of saying that I didn't know.
>
> When my wife was still working in Chile most of the people in the
> laboratory were Unidad Popular (Allende) supporters, as she had been,
> or Democracia Cristiana (Frei) supporters, as the head of the
> laboratory had been, but there were one or two who thought the
> Dictadora Militar (Pinochet) was an excellent thing. On the whole they
> agreed to differ, but that didn't stop them discussing their views.
>
> I expect you know people around you who would love to see Franco's
> successors back in power. I'm going to be in Santander next week and
> I'll be looking out for remnants of franquismo. A few years in Puerto
> de la Cruz de Tenerife I found myself on the Avenida del Generalísimo
> Francisco Franco, and was told that Santander was the only other city
> in Spain that still had one. If Google Maps is to believed, however,
> they're both gone now.

They've just decided to evict Franco from the cemetery of heroes.

The only remaining statue of Stalin in FUSSR was in his home town in
Georgia. It's probably still there.
Paul Carmichael
2018-09-07 11:56:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 11:44, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> When my wife was still working in Chile most of the people in the laboratory were Unidad
> Popular (Allende) supporters

I've read loads of Isabel's stuff. Some of it's alright. Some not so.

Some amusing:

En 1975 mi familia y yo abandonamos Chile, porque no podíamos
seguir viviendo bajo la dictadura del General Pinochet. El apogeo de la
liberación sexual nos sorprendió en Venezuela, un país cálido, donde
la sensualidad se expresa sin subterfugios. En las playas se ven
machos bigotudos con unos bikinis diseñados para resaltar lo que
contienen.

"El sexo y yo".

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-07 14:22:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-07 13:56:28 +0200, Paul Carmichael <***@gmail.com> said:

> On 06/09/18 11:44, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> When my wife was still working in Chile most of the people in the
>> laboratory were Unidad Popular (Allende) supporters
>
> I've read loads of Isabel's stuff. Some of it's alright. Some not so.
>
> Some amusing:
>
> En 1975 mi familia y yo abandonamos Chile, porque no podíamos
> seguir viviendo bajo la dictadura del General Pinochet. El apogeo de la
> liberación sexual nos sorprendió en Venezuela, un país cálido, donde
> la sensualidad se expresa sin subterfugios. En las playas se ven
> machos bigotudos con unos bikinis diseñados para resaltar lo que
> contienen.
>
> "El sexo y yo".

Yes. If I did smileys I'd do one here.


--
athel
Peter Moylan
2018-09-08 04:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/18 21:56, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> On 06/09/18 11:44, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> When my wife was still working in Chile most of the people in the
>> laboratory were Unidad Popular (Allende) supporters
>
> I've read loads of Isabel's stuff. Some of it's alright. Some not
> so.
>
> Some amusing:
>
> En 1975 mi familia y yo abandonamos Chile, porque no podíamos seguir
> viviendo bajo la dictadura del General Pinochet. El apogeo de la
> liberación sexual nos sorprendió en Venezuela, un país cálido, donde
> la sensualidad se expresa sin subterfugios. En las playas se ven
> machos bigotudos con unos bikinis diseñados para resaltar lo que
> contienen.
>
> "El sexo y yo".

Some day I'm going to have to learn Spanish. I could read almost all of
the above without going even once to a dictionary. The only hard words
were "diseñados" and "resaltar". I've never seen another language that's
so easy to understand.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Paul Carmichael
2018-09-08 09:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/09/18 06:03, Peter Moylan wrote:

> Some day I'm going to have to learn Spanish. I could read almost all of
> the above without going even once to a dictionary. The only hard words
> were "diseñados" and "resaltar". I've never seen another language that's
> so easy to understand.
>

Spanish really is a doddle. They say English is the easiest language to learn - I'd hate
to have to learn it from scratch. I'm struggling with German. How to form the plural? Take
a guess!

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 12:34:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:03:27 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/09/18 21:56, Paul Carmichael wrote:

> > En 1975 mi familia y yo abandonamos Chile, porque no podíamos seguir
> > viviendo bajo la dictadura del General Pinochet. El apogeo de la
> > liberación sexual nos sorprendió en Venezuela, un país cálido, donde
> > la sensualidad se expresa sin subterfugios. En las playas se ven
> > machos bigotudos con unos bikinis diseñados para resaltar lo que
> > contienen.
> >
> > "El sexo y yo".
>
> Some day I'm going to have to learn Spanish. I could read almost all of
> the above without going even once to a dictionary. The only hard words
> were "diseñados" and "resaltar". I've never seen another language that's
> so easy to understand.

Interesting. Long ago, I discovered that I could read articles in my
field that were written in Italian, but not ones that were written
in Spanish.

I'm really rather annoyed that I was commissioned to write a chapter for
an exhibition catalogue for a new anthropological museum in Barcelona,
which was to be published in English, Spanish, and Catalan. They paid me,
they paid the translation service, and then they didn't publish the
volumes (not even on line) -- and I never saw the Spanish or Catalan
versions.

Whereas a chapter of mine in a Helsinki catalogue has a Finnish version
on facing pages, and *The World's Writing Systems* has actually been
translated into Japanese (the English bits -- the references to the
literature -- were poorly proofread).
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-08 19:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/18 10:03 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/09/18 21:56, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> On 06/09/18 11:44, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> When my wife was still working in Chile most of the people in the
>>> laboratory were Unidad Popular (Allende) supporters
>>
>> I've read loads of Isabel's stuff. Some of it's alright. Some not
>> so.
>>
>> Some amusing:
>>
>> En 1975 mi familia y yo abandonamos Chile, porque no podíamos seguir
>> viviendo bajo la dictadura del General Pinochet. El apogeo de la
>> liberación sexual nos sorprendió en Venezuela, un país cálido, donde
>> la sensualidad se expresa sin subterfugios. En las playas se ven
>> machos bigotudos con unos bikinis diseñados para resaltar lo que
>> contienen.
>>
>> "El sexo y yo".
>
> Some day I'm going to have to learn Spanish. I could read almost all of
> the above without going even once to a dictionary. The only hard words
> were "diseñados" and "resaltar". I've never seen another language that's
> so easy to understand.

I found Spanish pretty easy (up to the level I'm at, which includes no
knowledge whatever about when to use "unos" as above) since I knew some
French. I'm impressed that you got "bigotudos", though.

--
Jerry Friedman
John Varela
2018-09-08 21:05:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:41:15 UTC, Jerry Friedman
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 9/7/18 10:03 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 07/09/18 21:56, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> >> On 06/09/18 11:44, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>
> >>> When my wife was still working in Chile most of the people in the
> >>> laboratory were Unidad Popular (Allende) supporters
> >>
> >> I've read loads of Isabel's stuff. Some of it's alright. Some not
> >> so.
> >>
> >> Some amusing:
> >>
> >> En 1975 mi familia y yo abandonamos Chile, porque no podíamos seguir
> >> viviendo bajo la dictadura del General Pinochet. El apogeo de la
> >> liberación sexual nos sorprendió en Venezuela, un país cálido, donde
> >> la sensualidad se expresa sin subterfugios. En las playas se ven
> >> machos bigotudos con unos bikinis diseñados para resaltar lo que
> >> contienen.
> >>
> >> "El sexo y yo".
> >
> > Some day I'm going to have to learn Spanish. I could read almost all of
> > the above without going even once to a dictionary. The only hard words
> > were "diseñados" and "resaltar". I've never seen another language that's
> > so easy to understand.
>
> I found Spanish pretty easy (up to the level I'm at, which includes no
> knowledge whatever about when to use "unos" as above) since I knew some
> French. I'm impressed that you got "bigotudos", though.

Me too, because I didn't, though how he could have missed that
diseñados = designed is a puzzlement.

--
John Varela
Peter Moylan
2018-09-09 03:03:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/09/18 05:41, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 9/7/18 10:03 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 07/09/18 21:56, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>> On 06/09/18 11:44, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>
>>>> When my wife was still working in Chile most of the people in
>>>> the laboratory were Unidad Popular (Allende) supporters
>>>
>>> I've read loads of Isabel's stuff. Some of it's alright. Some
>>> not so.
>>>
>>> Some amusing:
>>>
>>> En 1975 mi familia y yo abandonamos Chile, porque no podíamos
>>> seguir viviendo bajo la dictadura del General Pinochet. El apogeo
>>> de la liberación sexual nos sorprendió en Venezuela, un país
>>> cálido, donde la sensualidad se expresa sin subterfugios. En las
>>> playas se ven machos bigotudos con unos bikinis diseñados para
>>> resaltar lo que contienen.
>>>
>>> "El sexo y yo".
>>
>> Some day I'm going to have to learn Spanish. I could read almost
>> all of the above without going even once to a dictionary. The only
>> hard words were "diseñados" and "resaltar". I've never seen another
>> language that's so easy to understand.
>
> I found Spanish pretty easy (up to the level I'm at, which includes
> no knowledge whatever about when to use "unos" as above) since I knew
> some French. I'm impressed that you got "bigotudos", though.

Now that I've looked it up, it turns out that I mistranslated
"bigotudos". I assumed it meant "bigoted".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Moylan
2018-09-06 09:51:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 17:40, Paul Carmichael wrote:

> Most of my "friends" are bullfighting fans. I hate them for that, but
> I have to co-exist with them.

I have been told that you can always pick the Australians at a
bullfight. They're the ones cheering for the bull.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Yates
2018-09-05 23:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 15:58:26 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>
>I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>
>Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>too.)
>
>When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>
>OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>
>Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>doesn't come across as a bigot?

I would never go back.

>I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
John Varela
2018-09-06 00:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 19:58:26 UTC, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>
> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>
> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> too.)
>
> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>
> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>
> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>
> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.

Yes, but the other mechanic might not be. Why patronize someone you
know is bigoted instead of one who, at worst, is bigoted but for all
you know is less bigoted than Ken or not bigoted at all?

--
John Varela
Adam Funk
2018-09-06 14:05:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06, John Varela wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 19:58:26 UTC, Tony Cooper
><***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
...
>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>
>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>
>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>
> Yes, but the other mechanic might not be. Why patronize someone you
> know is bigoted instead of one who, at worst, is bigoted but for all
> you know is less bigoted than Ken or not bigoted at all?

I agree with this. I'd use a different mechanic if practically
possible & I'd encourage others not to use that one.


--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. --- David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995
Katy Jennison
2018-09-06 14:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 15:05, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2018-09-06, John Varela wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 19:58:26 UTC, Tony Cooper
>> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> ...
>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>
>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>
>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>
>> Yes, but the other mechanic might not be. Why patronize someone you
>> know is bigoted instead of one who, at worst, is bigoted but for all
>> you know is less bigoted than Ken or not bigoted at all?
>
> I agree with this. I'd use a different mechanic if practically
> possible & I'd encourage others not to use that one.
>

Has anyone yet said whether they'd address the issue with Ken himself?

Other things being equal, I'd be inclined not to go there again either,
but being a) a coward and b? practical, I'd probably a) feel
uncomfortable about saying something and b) he might be the best around.
And what's the point of going elsewhere, and advising others to do the
same, if you don't tell Ken why?
--
Katy Jennison
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-06 16:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:32:18 +0100, Katy Jennison
<***@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:

>On 06/09/2018 15:05, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2018-09-06, John Varela wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 19:58:26 UTC, Tony Cooper
>>> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>> ...
>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>
>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the other mechanic might not be. Why patronize someone you
>>> know is bigoted instead of one who, at worst, is bigoted but for all
>>> you know is less bigoted than Ken or not bigoted at all?
>>
>> I agree with this. I'd use a different mechanic if practically
>> possible & I'd encourage others not to use that one.
>>
>
>Has anyone yet said whether they'd address the issue with Ken himself?

Your motherly instincts at work?

It wouldn't do a bit of good. Knowing people like Ken, they would say
to you, "Good riddance to bad rubbish", or something along those
lines. His soul is filled with hatred. What would your two cents
mean to him and the basic flaw in his character?

I am certain he has customers who think the same way. You would
probably feel better about yourself by confronting him, but that's
about it.

>Other things being equal, I'd be inclined not to go there again either,
>but being a) a coward and b? practical, I'd probably a) feel
>uncomfortable about saying something and b) he might be the best around.
> And what's the point of going elsewhere, and advising others to do the
>same, if you don't tell Ken why?

Only self-gratification by confronting him It wouldn't mean diddly
squat to Ken; it would only raise his ire.

If he is an excellent mechanic, ignore it all.
Tak To
2018-09-07 07:39:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/6/2018 10:32 AM, Katy Jennison wrote:
> [...]
> Has anyone yet said whether they'd address the issue with Ken himself?
>
> Other things being equal, I'd be inclined not to go there again either,
> but being a) a coward and b? practical, I'd probably a) feel
> uncomfortable about saying something and b) he might be the best around.
>
> And what's the point of going elsewhere, and advising others to do the
> same, if you don't tell Ken why?

The point is to vote by one's feet.

Unless one and Ken are friends, one has no moral obligation
to inform Ken of the reason. OTOH, if one and Ken are friends,
then one should perhaps try to have a dialog and give Ken
a chance to change.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 03:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>
> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>
> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> too.)
>
> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>
> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>
> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>
> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.

He acts on his bigotry.

In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-09-06 10:51:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Look who is talking.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-06 14:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06 12:51:08 +0200, Arindam Banerjee
<***@gmail.com> said:

> Look who is talking.

How can I, as you haven't said who you are replying to?


--
athel
Arindam Banerjee
2018-09-06 23:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 7 September 2018 00:40:36 UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-09-06 12:51:08 +0200, Arindam Banerjee
> <***@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Look who is talking.
>
> How can I, as you haven't said who you are replying to?
>
>
> --
> athel

Point. These days the threading of posts in usenet is not obvious, as it used to be. In my ipad/smartphone I cannot get the earlier text when I reply.

In this case, I was mocking PTD's hypocritical stance - this most ardent racist, supporting the racist notion of the fictitious AIT, takes a fake anti-racist stand!
Tak To
2018-09-07 06:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>
>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>
>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>> too.)
>>
>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>
>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>
>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>
>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>
> He acts on his bigotry.
>
> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.

I agree that turning away a customer based on their
ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
communication is difficult.

Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
customers based on their legal status.

If a business owner wants to refuse service to illegal
aliens, then he/she should ask *everyone* for proof of
one's status. It would be immoral to do this selectively,
and it should be illegal too.

In any case, I don't know how much actual harm Ken has
done by turning away that particular Mexican customer.
Maybe it is easy for the Mexican to find another garage,
or maybe not, I have no idea. And for all I know
Ken might have started a boycott in the Mexican
community that is going to hurt his business in the
long run.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2018-09-07 13:47:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:52 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>
>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>
>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>> too.)
>>>
>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>
>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>
>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>
>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>
>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>
>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>
>I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>communication is difficult.
>
>Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>customers based on their legal status.
>
The illegal aspect is based on the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
which prohibits discrimination based on "national origin". That's
federal law, and applicable in any US state. Despite the pleas of
many, Florida is still in the Union. They can't get rid of us.

It's not really a consideration because Ken has a prominent sign that
says that appointments are required, and there would not be any way to
make any case that the customer was turned away because of his
suspected national origin. Unlike the baker, Ken didn't say why he
was turning away the customer.

What is missed, though, is the rant Ken went on about illegals was in
response to my comment that he needs to hire a Spanish-speaking
person, and his response "Not on my watch". If the customer had
applied for a job at Ken's, refusing to hire him could be a violation
of the (federal) Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968 which
also includes the "national origin" aspect.

There was, by the way, no "dire need" or "vital service" involved, and
Ken's is one of many - very many - auto repair shops in the area. Any
auto parts store (and there are many of those) can plug in their
gadget and determine why the "Check Engine" light is on.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2018-09-07 19:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 9:47 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:52 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>
>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>> too.)
>>>>
>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>
>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>
>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>
>>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>>
>>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>>
>> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>> communication is difficult.
>>
>> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>> customers based on their legal status.
>
> The illegal aspect is based on the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
> which prohibits discrimination based on "national origin". That's
> federal law, and applicable in any US state. Despite the pleas of
> many, Florida is still in the Union. They can't get rid of us.

Wait, how did "national origin" get interpreted as "immigration
status"?? Do you know of any actual cases?

> It's not really a consideration because Ken has a prominent sign that
> says that appointments are required, and there would not be any way to
> make any case that the customer was turned away because of his
> suspected national origin. Unlike the baker, Ken didn't say why he
> was turning away the customer.
>
> What is missed, though, is the rant Ken went on about illegals was in
> response to my comment that he needs to hire a Spanish-speaking
> person, and his response "Not on my watch". If the customer had
> applied for a job at Ken's, refusing to hire him could be a violation
> of the (federal) Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968 which
> also includes the "national origin" aspect.

There is no Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968.
There is one for 1986, but it was about hiring[1], not providing
service to customers.

[1] Specifically, it made it illegal to hire an illegal
immigrant.

> There was, by the way, no "dire need" or "vital service" involved, and
> Ken's is one of many - very many - auto repair shops in the area. Any
> auto parts store (and there are many of those) can plug in their
> gadget and determine why the "Check Engine" light is on.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2018-09-07 21:26:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:43:24 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/7/2018 9:47 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:52 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>> too.)
>>>>>
>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>
>>>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>>>
>>>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>>>
>>> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>>> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>>> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>>> communication is difficult.
>>>
>>> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>>> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>>> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>>> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>>> customers based on their legal status.
>>
>> The illegal aspect is based on the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
>> which prohibits discrimination based on "national origin". That's
>> federal law, and applicable in any US state. Despite the pleas of
>> many, Florida is still in the Union. They can't get rid of us.
>
>Wait, how did "national origin" get interpreted as "immigration
>status"??

Because, in my post, I wrote that I think the customer was Mexican. I
think Ken did too. I also wrote that the customer did not - in the
short time he was observed - speak English. Add Mexican to "doesn't
speak English", and you have a situation where Ken would think he's an
illegal immigrant. That's an assumption on my part, but probably not
far off at all.

>
>> It's not really a consideration because Ken has a prominent sign that
>> says that appointments are required, and there would not be any way to
>> make any case that the customer was turned away because of his
>> suspected national origin. Unlike the baker, Ken didn't say why he
>> was turning away the customer.
>>
>> What is missed, though, is the rant Ken went on about illegals was in
>> response to my comment that he needs to hire a Spanish-speaking
>> person, and his response "Not on my watch". If the customer had
>> applied for a job at Ken's, refusing to hire him could be a violation
>> of the (federal) Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968 which
>> also includes the "national origin" aspect.
>
>There is no Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968.
>There is one for 1986, but it was about hiring[1], not providing
>service to customers.

OK, I transposed the numbers.
>
>[1] Specifically, it made it illegal to hire an illegal
> immigrant.

If you checked the date, you must have read the act. It reads, in
part,

"Although they must verify authorization to work by asking for
documents, employers are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of
citizenship, immigration status, or national origin with respect to
hiring, firing, recruitment, or referral. An employer that asks a job
applicant if he or she is a United States citizen or asks any
questions about immigration status before making an employment offer
may raise the inference that the employer is discriminating on the
basis of immigration status. Employers are also prohibited from
discriminating against refugees, individuals granted asylum,
individuals with temporary visas, or undocumented workers."

This relates to Ken's comment about not hiring one of "them".

That's clearly stated in my comments as shown above.

You have two issues here: One, Ken turned away a potential customer,
and two, Ken went on a rant when I suggested he should hire a person
who speaks Spanish.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2018-09-08 06:23:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 5:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:43:24 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2018 9:47 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:52 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>>> too.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>>
>>>>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>>>>
>>>>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>>>> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>>>> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>>>> communication is difficult.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>>>> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>>>> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>>>> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>>>> customers based on their legal status.
>>>
>>> The illegal aspect is based on the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
>>> which prohibits discrimination based on "national origin". That's
>>> federal law, and applicable in any US state. Despite the pleas of
>>> many, Florida is still in the Union. They can't get rid of us.
>>
>> Wait, how did "national origin" get interpreted as "immigration
>> status"??
>
> Because, in my post, I wrote that I think the customer was Mexican. I
> think Ken did too. I also wrote that the customer did not - in the
> short time he was observed - speak English. Add Mexican to "doesn't
> speak English", and you have a situation where Ken would think he's an
> illegal immigrant. That's an assumption on my part, but probably not
> far off at all.

<Sigh>

(1) I said, "I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
customers because of X."

(2) You wrote, in effect, "It is illegal in Florida to turn away
customers because of Y."

(3) I asked, "How did Y get translated into X?" By which I meant
"How is that supposed to answer the question in (1)"?

(4) You said, "Because ... Ken thinks a customer is X".

Once again, how is that supposed to answer the question in (1)?

----- -----

>>> It's not really a consideration because Ken has a prominent sign that
>>> says that appointments are required, and there would not be any way to
>>> make any case that the customer was turned away because of his
>>> suspected national origin. Unlike the baker, Ken didn't say why he
>>> was turning away the customer.
>>>
>>> What is missed, though, is the rant Ken went on about illegals was in
>>> response to my comment that he needs to hire a Spanish-speaking
>>> person, and his response "Not on my watch". If the customer had
>>> applied for a job at Ken's, refusing to hire him could be a violation
>>> of the (federal) Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968 which
>>> also includes the "national origin" aspect.
>>
>> There is no Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968.
>> There is one for 1986, but it was about hiring[1], not providing
>> service to customers.
>
> OK, I transposed the numbers.
>>
>> [1] Specifically, it made it illegal to hire an illegal
>> immigrant.
>
> If you checked the date, you must have read the act. It reads, in
> part,
>
> "Although they must verify authorization to work by asking for
> documents, employers are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of
> citizenship, immigration status, or national origin with respect to
> hiring, firing, recruitment, or referral. An employer that asks a job
> applicant if he or she is a United States citizen or asks any
> questions about immigration status before making an employment offer
> may raise the inference that the employer is discriminating on the
> basis of immigration status. Employers are also prohibited from
> discriminating against refugees, individuals granted asylum,
> individuals with temporary visas, or undocumented workers."

It is not that important, but I cannot find the above paragraph
in the IRCA 1986 document here
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg3445.pdf

> This relates to Ken's comment about not hiring one of "them".
>
> That's clearly stated in my comments as shown above.

----- -----

> You have two issues here: One, Ken turned away a potential customer,
> and two, Ken went on a rant when I suggested he should hire a person
> who speaks Spanish.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 15:44:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 02:23:12 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/7/2018 5:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:43:24 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2018 9:47 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:52 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>>>> too.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>>>>> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>>>>> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>>>>> communication is difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>>>>> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>>>>> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>>>>> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>>>>> customers based on their legal status.
>>>>
>>>> The illegal aspect is based on the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
>>>> which prohibits discrimination based on "national origin". That's
>>>> federal law, and applicable in any US state. Despite the pleas of
>>>> many, Florida is still in the Union. They can't get rid of us.
>>>
>>> Wait, how did "national origin" get interpreted as "immigration
>>> status"??
>>
>> Because, in my post, I wrote that I think the customer was Mexican. I
>> think Ken did too. I also wrote that the customer did not - in the
>> short time he was observed - speak English. Add Mexican to "doesn't
>> speak English", and you have a situation where Ken would think he's an
>> illegal immigrant. That's an assumption on my part, but probably not
>> far off at all.
>
><Sigh>
>
>(1) I said, "I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>customers because of X."
>
>(2) You wrote, in effect, "It is illegal in Florida to turn away
>customers because of Y."
>
>(3) I asked, "How did Y get translated into X?" By which I meant
>"How is that supposed to answer the question in (1)"?
>
>(4) You said, "Because ... Ken thinks a customer is X".
>
>Once again, how is that supposed to answer the question in (1)?

I can't follow that X Y stuff. I'm sure you know what you're writing,
but I can't figure it out. Would it be that much more complicated to
use whatever the X and Y stand for?

The one thing that does seem that you're asking about is the "illegal
in Florida" part. Florida has nothing to do with it. The illegality
of discrimination because of national origin - or for certain other
reasons - is based on federal law. The subject can be discussed
without any mention of the state in which the incident occurred.

Once again, I'll point out that there are two separate issues:
Refusing service to a customer and refusing to hire an employee.
Both are illegal if based on national origin of the refused. The
Immigration and Reform Act applies only the hiring issue and the Civil
Rights Act applies to the refusal of service.

Where you get into the "Is there a state law that prohibits...." is
discrimination not covered in the Civil Rights Act. For example,
Florida has state laws that add prohibitions based on marital status,
AIDS/HIV, and Sickle cell trait.

Additionally, some cities have laws that prohibit discrimination by
landlords in renting to gays.


> ----- -----
>
>>>> It's not really a consideration because Ken has a prominent sign that
>>>> says that appointments are required, and there would not be any way to
>>>> make any case that the customer was turned away because of his
>>>> suspected national origin. Unlike the baker, Ken didn't say why he
>>>> was turning away the customer.
>>>>
>>>> What is missed, though, is the rant Ken went on about illegals was in
>>>> response to my comment that he needs to hire a Spanish-speaking
>>>> person, and his response "Not on my watch". If the customer had
>>>> applied for a job at Ken's, refusing to hire him could be a violation
>>>> of the (federal) Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968 which
>>>> also includes the "national origin" aspect.
>>>
>>> There is no Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968.
>>> There is one for 1986, but it was about hiring[1], not providing
>>> service to customers.
>>
>> OK, I transposed the numbers.
>>>
>>> [1] Specifically, it made it illegal to hire an illegal
>>> immigrant.
>>
>> If you checked the date, you must have read the act. It reads, in
>> part,
>>
>> "Although they must verify authorization to work by asking for
>> documents, employers are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of
>> citizenship, immigration status, or national origin with respect to
>> hiring, firing, recruitment, or referral. An employer that asks a job
>> applicant if he or she is a United States citizen or asks any
>> questions about immigration status before making an employment offer
>> may raise the inference that the employer is discriminating on the
>> basis of immigration status. Employers are also prohibited from
>> discriminating against refugees, individuals granted asylum,
>> individuals with temporary visas, or undocumented workers."
>
>It is not that important, but I cannot find the above paragraph
>in the IRCA 1986 document here
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg3445.pdf

Not the specific wording I copied from another site, but "national
origin" prohibition is on page 16 in Section 274B of your link.


>> This relates to Ken's comment about not hiring one of "them".
>>
>> That's clearly stated in my comments as shown above.
>
> ----- -----
>
>> You have two issues here: One, Ken turned away a potential customer,
>> and two, Ken went on a rant when I suggested he should hire a person
>> who speaks Spanish.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2018-09-09 14:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/8/2018 11:44 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 02:23:12 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2018 5:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:43:24 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2018 9:47 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:52 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>>>>> too.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>>>>>> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>>>>>> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>>>>>> communication is difficult.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>>>>>> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>>>>>> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>>>>>> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>>>>>> customers based on their legal status.
>>>>>
>>>>> The illegal aspect is based on the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
>>>>> which prohibits discrimination based on "national origin". That's
>>>>> federal law, and applicable in any US state. Despite the pleas of
>>>>> many, Florida is still in the Union. They can't get rid of us.
>>>>
>>>> Wait, how did "national origin" get interpreted as "immigration
>>>> status"??
>>>
>>> Because, in my post, I wrote that I think the customer was Mexican. I
>>> think Ken did too. I also wrote that the customer did not - in the
>>> short time he was observed - speak English. Add Mexican to "doesn't
>>> speak English", and you have a situation where Ken would think he's an
>>> illegal immigrant. That's an assumption on my part, but probably not
>>> far off at all.
>>
>> <Sigh>
>>
>> (1) I said, "I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>> customers because of X."
>>
>> (2) You wrote, in effect, "It is illegal in Florida to turn away
>> customers because of Y."
>>
>> (3) I asked, "How did Y get translated into X?" By which I meant
>> "How is that supposed to answer the question in (1)"?
>>
>> (4) You said, "Because ... Ken thinks a customer is X".
>>
>> Once again, how is that supposed to answer the question in (1)?
>
> I can't follow that X Y stuff. I'm sure you know what you're writing,
> but I can't figure it out. Would it be that much more complicated to
> use whatever the X and Y stand for?

X = immigration status
Y = national origin

> The one thing that does seem that you're asking about is the "illegal
> in Florida" part. Florida has nothing to do with it. The illegality
> of discrimination because of national origin - or for certain other
> reasons - is based on federal law.

Yes, but I was not talking about it.

> The subject can be discussed
> without any mention of the state in which the incident occurred.

Of course, but the reference to Florida made it sound like you
were responding to my comment.

Tony, this is the second time in recent weeks that you change
the topic or focus of discussion abruptly in a rather ambiguous
fashion. Next time, could you add a "---- ----" or use a phrase
like "btw" or "FWIW"? It is not an onerous task, and it
gives that impression that you are paying attention. TIA.

> Once again, I'll point out that there are two separate issues:
> Refusing service to a customer and refusing to hire an employee.
> Both are illegal if based on national origin of the refused. The
> Immigration and Reform Act applies only the hiring issue and the Civil
> Rights Act applies to the refusal of service.

Loud and clear. But what gave you the impression that were
any confusion, since I was no where near the topic of hiring?

> Where you get into the "Is there a state law that prohibits...." is
> discrimination not covered in the Civil Rights Act.

I knew that. Why do you think I wondered about Florida law
and not federal law?

> For example,
> Florida has state laws that add prohibitions based on marital status,
> AIDS/HIV, and Sickle cell trait.

Exactly. So, does or does not Florida has laws against refusing
illegal aliens as customers?

> Additionally, some cities have laws that prohibit discrimination by
> landlords in renting to gays.

----- -----

>>>>> It's not really a consideration because Ken has a prominent sign that
>>>>> says that appointments are required, and there would not be any way to
>>>>> make any case that the customer was turned away because of his
>>>>> suspected national origin. Unlike the baker, Ken didn't say why he
>>>>> was turning away the customer.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is missed, though, is the rant Ken went on about illegals was in
>>>>> response to my comment that he needs to hire a Spanish-speaking
>>>>> person, and his response "Not on my watch". If the customer had
>>>>> applied for a job at Ken's, refusing to hire him could be a violation
>>>>> of the (federal) Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968 which
>>>>> also includes the "national origin" aspect.
>>>>
>>>> There is no Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968.
>>>> There is one for 1986, but it was about hiring[1], not providing
>>>> service to customers.
>>>
>>> OK, I transposed the numbers.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Specifically, it made it illegal to hire an illegal
>>>> immigrant.
>>>
>>> If you checked the date, you must have read the act. It reads, in
>>> part,
>>>
>>> "Although they must verify authorization to work by asking for
>>> documents, employers are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of
>>> citizenship, immigration status, or national origin with respect to
>>> hiring, firing, recruitment, or referral. An employer that asks a job
>>> applicant if he or she is a United States citizen or asks any
>>> questions about immigration status before making an employment offer
>>> may raise the inference that the employer is discriminating on the
>>> basis of immigration status. Employers are also prohibited from
>>> discriminating against refugees, individuals granted asylum,
>>> individuals with temporary visas, or undocumented workers."
>>
>> It is not that important, but I cannot find the above paragraph
>> in the IRCA 1986 document here
>> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg3445.pdf
>
> Not the specific wording I copied from another site, but "national
> origin" prohibition is on page 16 in Section 274B of your link.

OK.

Btw, I don't see any reference to "undocumented workers" in
Section 274B. Does the site explain what it means?

>>> This relates to Ken's comment about not hiring one of "them".
>>>
>>> That's clearly stated in my comments as shown above.
>>
----- -----

>>> You have two issues here: One, Ken turned away a potential customer,
>>> and two, Ken went on a rant when I suggested he should hire a person
>>> who speaks Spanish.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2018-09-09 16:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:26:23 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>> I can't follow that X Y stuff. I'm sure you know what you're writing,
>> but I can't figure it out. Would it be that much more complicated to
>> use whatever the X and Y stand for?
>
>X = immigration status
>Y = national origin
>
>> The one thing that does seem that you're asking about is the "illegal
>> in Florida" part. Florida has nothing to do with it. The illegality
>> of discrimination because of national origin - or for certain other
>> reasons - is based on federal law.
>
>Yes, but I was not talking about it.
>
>> The subject can be discussed
>> without any mention of the state in which the incident occurred.
>
>Of course, but the reference to Florida made it sound like you
>were responding to my comment.
>
>Tony, this is the second time in recent weeks that you change
>the topic or focus of discussion abruptly in a rather ambiguous
>fashion.

I don't know what you consider to be a change of topic or focus. As
far as I'm concerned, I've stayed on point. You do that X/Y thing,
and I may not be following what you consider the point to be.

>Exactly. So, does or does not Florida has laws against refusing
>illegal aliens as customers?

No. How could there be that type of law? That would require a
business to verify legality, and the questions required to verify
legality are illegal to ask by federal law.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 16:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 02:23:12 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>> "Although they must verify authorization to work by asking for
>> documents, employers are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of
>> citizenship, immigration status, or national origin with respect to
>> hiring, firing, recruitment, or referral. An employer that asks a job
>> applicant if he or she is a United States citizen or asks any
>> questions about immigration status before making an employment offer
>> may raise the inference that the employer is discriminating on the
>> basis of immigration status. Employers are also prohibited from
>> discriminating against refugees, individuals granted asylum,
>> individuals with temporary visas, or undocumented workers."
>
>It is not that important, but I cannot find the above paragraph
>in the IRCA 1986 document here
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg3445.pdf


Not the specific wording I copied from another site, but "national
origin" prohibition is on page 16 in Section 274B.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-09 16:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:47:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 02:36:52 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>
>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>> too.)
>>>>
>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>
>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>
>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>
>>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>>
>>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>>
>>I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>>ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>>reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>>communication is difficult.
>>
>>Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>>who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>>withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>>I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>>customers based on their legal status.
>>
>The illegal aspect is based on the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
>which prohibits discrimination based on "national origin". That's
>federal law, and applicable in any US state. Despite the pleas of
>many, Florida is still in the Union. They can't get rid of us.
>
>It's not really a consideration because Ken has a prominent sign that
>says that appointments are required, and there would not be any way to
>make any case that the customer was turned away because of his
>suspected national origin. Unlike the baker, Ken didn't say why he
>was turning away the customer.
>
>What is missed, though, is the rant Ken went on about illegals was in
>response to my comment that he needs to hire a Spanish-speaking
>person, and his response "Not on my watch". If the customer had
>applied for a job at Ken's, refusing to hire him could be a violation
>of the (federal) Immigration Reform and Control Action of 1968 which
>also includes the "national origin" aspect.
>
>There was, by the way, no "dire need" or "vital service" involved, and
>Ken's is one of many - very many - auto repair shops in the area. Any
>auto parts store (and there are many of those) can plug in their
>gadget and determine why the "Check Engine" light is on.

Ken may have had problems with speakers of English as a second
language before. And if the potential customer doesn't speak any
English, telling a mechanic what he wants or what is wrong with the
car could be a huge problem. He may have decided to avoid them
altogether based on bad experiences.

"Si, mi car say 'kachung....kachung.....kachung' when I vroom!"

He needs to hire a Spanish-speaking mechanic? You don't have the
right or authority to tell him how to run his business.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-09 16:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 09:14:27 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>He needs to hire a Spanish-speaking mechanic? You don't have the
>right or authority to tell him how to run his business.

When you say "You need to hire a Spanish-speaking employee", you are
not telling him how to run his business unless you are a government
official. It's an idiomatic way of saying "It would be helpful if you
had a Spanish-speaking employee in order to deal with some potential
customers."


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 13:47:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:36:56 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> >> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> >> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> >> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> >> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> >> too.)
> >> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> >> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> >> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> >> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> >> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> >> doesn't come across as a bigot?
> >> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> >> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> >> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> >> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
> > He acts on his bigotry.
> > In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>
> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
> communication is difficult.
>
> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
> customers based on their legal status.
>
> If a business owner wants to refuse service to illegal
> aliens, then he/she should ask *everyone* for proof of
> one's status. It would be immoral to do this selectively,
> and it should be illegal too.
>
> In any case, I don't know how much actual harm Ken has
> done by turning away that particular Mexican customer.
> Maybe it is easy for the Mexican to find another garage,
> or maybe not, I have no idea. And for all I know
> Ken might have started a boycott in the Mexican
> community that is going to hurt his business in the
> long run.

We do not know that he was Mexican.

We do not know that he was undocumented.

We wouldn't be surprised if refusal to serve an undocumented person is
legal in Florida, but we also know that it is illegal to refuse to serve
someone on the basis of national origin anywhere in the US.

All we know is that Tony observed an act of bigotry.
Tak To
2018-09-08 06:27:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 9:47 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:36:56 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>> too.)
>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>>
>> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>> communication is difficult.
>>
>> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>> customers based on their legal status.
>>
>> If a business owner wants to refuse service to illegal
>> aliens, then he/she should ask *everyone* for proof of
>> one's status. It would be immoral to do this selectively,
>> and it should be illegal too.
>>
>> In any case, I don't know how much actual harm Ken has
>> done by turning away that particular Mexican customer.
>> Maybe it is easy for the Mexican to find another garage,
>> or maybe not, I have no idea. And for all I know
>> Ken might have started a boycott in the Mexican
>> community that is going to hurt his business in the
>> long run.
>
> We do not know that he was Mexican.
>
> We do not know that he was undocumented.
>
> We wouldn't be surprised if refusal to serve an undocumented person is
> legal in Florida, but we also know that it is illegal to refuse to serve
> someone on the basis of national origin anywhere in the US.

Exactly.

> All we know is that Tony observed an act of bigotry.

We also know, to some extent, how Ken thinks.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 12:56:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 2:27:49 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/7/2018 9:47 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:36:56 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> >> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> >>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
> >>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> >>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> >>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
> >>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> >>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> >>>> too.)
> >>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> >>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> >>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> >>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
> >>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> >>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
> >>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> >>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
> >>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> >>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> >>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> >>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
> >>> He acts on his bigotry.
> >>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
> >>
> >> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
> >> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
> >> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
> >> communication is difficult.
> >>
> >> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
> >> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
> >> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
> >> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
> >> customers based on their legal status.
> >>
> >> If a business owner wants to refuse service to illegal
> >> aliens, then he/she should ask *everyone* for proof of
> >> one's status. It would be immoral to do this selectively,
> >> and it should be illegal too.
> >>
> >> In any case, I don't know how much actual harm Ken has
> >> done by turning away that particular Mexican customer.
> >> Maybe it is easy for the Mexican to find another garage,
> >> or maybe not, I have no idea. And for all I know
> >> Ken might have started a boycott in the Mexican
> >> community that is going to hurt his business in the
> >> long run.
> >
> > We do not know that he was Mexican.
> >
> > We do not know that he was undocumented.
> >
> > We wouldn't be surprised if refusal to serve an undocumented person is
> > legal in Florida, but we also know that it is illegal to refuse to serve
> > someone on the basis of national origin anywhere in the US.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > All we know is that Tony observed an act of bigotry.
>
> We also know, to some extent, how Ken thinks.

No problem. If he didn't act on those thoughts, no one is harmed. Even
if he spoke those thoughts but didn't act on them, only he himself might
be harmed (by losing the custom of those who disagreed), but perhaps
helped (by gaining the custom of those who agree -- exactly what's
happening with Nike at this moment, because of their embrace of Colin
Kaepernick).
Tony Cooper
2018-09-08 16:01:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 02:27:44 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/7/2018 9:47 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:36:56 AM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2018 11:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:58:31 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>>> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>>>>> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>>>>> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>>>>> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>>>>> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>>>>> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>>>>> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>>>>> too.)
>>>>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>>>>> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>>>>> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>>>>> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>>>>> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
>>>>> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>>>>> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
>>>>> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>>>>> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
>>>>> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
>>>>> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
>>>>> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>>>> He acts on his bigotry.
>>>> In most states, that would probably be an actionable offense. Shame on you.
>>>
>>> I agree that turning away a customer based on their
>>> ethnicity is both illegal and immoral, but not so if the
>>> reason is a reluctance to deal with people with whom
>>> communication is difficult.
>>>
>>> Also, I think it is *not* immoral to to turn away customers
>>> who are illegal aliens, though It might be immoral to
>>> withhold vital service to people who are in dire need.
>>> I don't know if it is illegal in Florida to turn away
>>> customers based on their legal status.
>>>
>>> If a business owner wants to refuse service to illegal
>>> aliens, then he/she should ask *everyone* for proof of
>>> one's status. It would be immoral to do this selectively,
>>> and it should be illegal too.
>>>
>>> In any case, I don't know how much actual harm Ken has
>>> done by turning away that particular Mexican customer.
>>> Maybe it is easy for the Mexican to find another garage,
>>> or maybe not, I have no idea. And for all I know
>>> Ken might have started a boycott in the Mexican
>>> community that is going to hurt his business in the
>>> long run.
>>
>> We do not know that he was Mexican.
>>
>> We do not know that he was undocumented.
>>
>> We wouldn't be surprised if refusal to serve an undocumented person is
>> legal in Florida, but we also know that it is illegal to refuse to serve
>> someone on the basis of national origin anywhere in the US.
>
>Exactly.
>
Exactly, my ass. States can, and do, make things legal that are
illegal by federal statute, but this is not one of them.

We see this now in state laws regarding marijuana use. New Jersey
state Senator Nicholas Scutari is promoting a bill to make marijuana
legal in the state that would conflict with federal law.

However, Florida has not enacted any laws that conflict with federal
discrimination laws. The state has, in fact, added protected groups.

xoou9ol

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2018-09-06 09:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 05:58, Tony Cooper wrote:

> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs
> someone in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not
> on my watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on
> for a while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.

Our immigrants are of course different from yours, but it sounds we have
the same kinds of bigots.

Here, there are two major complaints about immigrants, especially those
who arrived as war refugees: (a) they're a drain on the public purse
because they don't work, and (b) they're taking our jobs. The same
person can make both of these assertions without even noticing the
contradiction.

Oh, yes, and then there's (c) they refuse to integrate, and (d) we don't
want them mixing with real Australians.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
occam
2018-09-06 10:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 11:47, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/09/18 05:58, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs
>> someone in the shop that speaks Spanish.  Ken almost erupted.  "Not
>> on my watch!".  He said he wouldn't hire any of "them".  He went on
>> for a while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>
> Our immigrants are of course different from yours, but it sounds we have
> the same kinds of bigots.
>
> Here, there are two major complaints about immigrants, especially those
> who arrived as war refugees: (a) they're a drain on the public purse
> because they don't work, and (b) they're taking our jobs. The same
> person can make both of these assertions without even noticing the
> contradiction.
>
> Oh, yes, and then there's (c) they refuse to integrate, and (d) we don't
> want them mixing with real Australians.
>

There is a very interesting documentary out recently called
'Brexitannia' (2017). (Spoiler alert - it is an examination of the
different grass-roots views behind the referendum.) All the points you
raise and more are raised as issues by this extended interview of
British citizens. The bottom line is that a close examination of any of
the issues turn out to be bigotry rather than based on facts.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-09-06 10:57:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I never had any trouble with any Australian trsdie. Nicest blokes on Earth. My skin is dark brown and I have been here 28 years. Not that I understood all they said but they could always understand me. That must have helped.
avs234
2018-09-06 12:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 10:58:31 PM UTC+3, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
> Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>
> I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
> that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
> that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>
> Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
> was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
> too.)
>
> When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
> in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
> watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
> while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.
>
> OK...we've established that Ken is a good mechanic, and that Ken's a
> bigot. I like having a good mechanic on tap, but I don't like bigots.
>
> Would you continue to patronize Ken, or find some other mechanic who
> doesn't come across as a bigot?
>
> I'm going to continue to patronize Ken. I don't agree with him, and I
> don't like his attitude, but the only thing I really know is that he's
> outspoken about his prejudices. Some other mechanic may be equally
> bigoted, but not so outspoken that I'd know.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

What would I do?
If the Mexican had been somehow endangered, I'd be on his side.
Anyway, I'd never ever return to that shop, never matter the masterful Ted the Mechanic.
Bill Day
2018-09-06 14:32:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 15:58:26 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>I have been going to the same automobile mechanic for several years.
>Ken is a good mechanic, and his prices are reasonable.
>
>I was in his shop last week for an oil change when a Hispanic man (one
>that appeared to be Mexican) came in. The man's English was so broken
>that he could barely communicate that the "Check Engine" light was on.
>
>Ken blew him off. Rather rudely, saying he didn't understand what he
>was talking about. (I figured it out, though, and I'm sure Ken did
>too.)
>
>When the man left the shop I casually commented that Ken needs someone
>in the shop that speaks Spanish. Ken almost erupted. "Not on my
>watch!". He said he wouldn't hire any of "them". He went on for a
>while about job stealing, illegal immigration, and the like.

We patronized the same shop for a number of years. It was owned by a
Hungarian man & his son. The father had escaped the Soviet tanks in
1956 by days of walking and hiding. Employed in this shop were a black
guy and a Hispanic guy. Everyone there was polite, attentive and
competent. The owner often checked warning lights and fixed small
things without charging.
Had I seen what you did, I would have said quietly, "I suspect that
there are other shops in the area that can fix my car and still decent
and helpful as possible to strangers.. I will be looking for them ."

I can't speak to what I would do if it was a small town and there
were no other shops.
--
remove nonsense for reply
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 15:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:32:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Day wrote:

> We patronized the same shop for a number of years. It was owned by a
> Hungarian man & his son. The father had escaped the Soviet tanks in
> 1956 by days of walking and hiding. Employed in this shop were a black
> guy and a Hispanic guy. Everyone there was polite, attentive and
> competent. The owner often checked warning lights and fixed small
> things without charging.
> Had I seen what you did, I would have said quietly, "I suspect that
> there are other shops in the area that can fix my car and still decent
> and helpful as possible to strangers.. I will be looking for them ."
>
> I can't speak to what I would do if it was a small town and there
> were no other shops.

I go to a repair shop called Jack's. The two mechanics (remember what Tom
& Ray said about needing old guys who know how old cars work) are John and
Johnny, and neither is the eponymous Jack.

I found them because 15 years ago I needed an inspection in order to
transfer my registration from NY to NJ, they were about the closest
facility offering the service, and they had a very nice receptionist/
administrator who answered the phone. She soon went away, and they
haven't had one since, but they know how to fix old cars. They also
seem to have a contract with the JCPD, which presumably patronizes
shops all over the city near the various police stations.

And now, back to your regular anti-bigotry campaign.
Loading...