Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that. As long as the shop owner is in "control", his rights should be subjugated? He's fully in control of what he posts in his shop, isn't he?
First, there you go with the fraudulent debating as you shift the topic YET AGAIN. All of a sudden now we're back to "SHOULD"? I find it very interesting how you seem to shift from "could" and "should" interchangeably, as if the words mean the same thing.
Since you're having trouble wrapping your mind around it, let me walk you through in real simple terms...
First thing...in terms of "rights being subjugated"
Multiple people have rights.
Sometimes these rights intersect and conflict with each other.
When rights conflict with each other, it falls upon the law to determine which right/individual wins out.
Which right/individual wins out in a given situation is determined through various criteria, typically enshrined in law or legal precedence.
This is the ENTIRE BASIS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
This then leads to the next part
Second thing...in terms of control
Who's in control of knowingly causing a conflict to happen matters.
With a denial of service by a shop owner, that owner is causing the conflict. Their action, denying service based on [race/gender/sexual orientation/handicap], is what is causing the rights to come into conflict.
With a religious decoration offending someone, the person being offended is causing the conflict. Their action, the act of BEING OFFENDED, is what is causing the rights to come into conflict.
The customer in the first situation had no control over whether their [race/gender/sexual orientation/handicap] would offend the religious sensibilities of a shop keeper, and as such are not responsible for causing the conflict. It is the shop keeper that is taking the action that knowingly puts two peoples rights at odds.
The shop keeper in the second situation had no control over whether their [decorations/font/words/symbols/etc] would offended the sensibilities of a customer, and as such are not responsible for causing the conflict. It is the customer that is taking the action (being offended) that knowingly puts two peoples rights at odds.
This is taken into consideration when measuring who's rights should win out in a situation.
--------------
To the ridiculous question of "He's fully in control of what he posts in his shop"...yes. Yes he is. What he is
not fully in control of is what OFFENDS people.
He could put
nothing in his shop and that could still "offend" someone who feels that sparsely decorated places are uninteresting and boring and thus they won't ever shop at such a place. While it's possible to take actions to minimize one's chance of offending someone based on a basic understanding of the customer's one is likely to have enter their store and basic understanding of their views, it is ultimately
impossible to guarantee that one will not offend someone. Because ultimately the act of being offended is controlled
entirely by the person who is BEING OFFENDED. The only instance where there is even a chance of an exception to this is with things that are so roundly recognized by the whole of society as existing for the purpose of presenting an offensive message (IE, telling someone "**** you mother****er" or "flipping the bird" in most cases). And even then, it is still ultimately on the other person as to whether or not the "offensive" act actually DOES "offend" them.