The hell is wrong with you, Catalonia?!

[Arwon]

Congratulate them for not making their censorship as restrictive as it could be? I don't think so. I'll take no censorship. That's like saying I should congratulate the people wanting to abolish presumption of innocence because they're not advocating for the summary execution of suspected homophobes.

And racial hatred is a bit of a fuzzy concept, no? What is racial hatred? Saying "kill everybody from race X" clearly is and is already illegal anywhere. Saying "race X is inferior" is an opinion, however wrong or even hateful, and shouldn't be illegal.

It's a civil matter, essentially a tort that impacted people can take action over via the judicial system, it's censorship about as much as defamation law is censorship.

 

[luiz]

Relevant to the thread:

Harvard Law Professors Condemn School’s Sexual Misconduct Policy

A group of Harvard Law School professors condemned the university’s new sexual misconduct policy, saying it violates the rights of the accused and “departs dramatically” from current law.

Harvard’s procedures for deciding sexual misconduct cases “lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation,” the 28 professors said in an open letter published late yesterday on the Boston Globe website. “We find the new sexual harassment policy inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach.”

In July, Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard established an Office for Sexual and Gender-Based Dispute Resolution that will use expert investigators to look into all types of sexual assault, stalking, harassment or misconduct. The school also adopted the U.S. Education Department’s recommendation to use the “preponderance of evidence” standard in adjudicating cases, meaning that an incident is more likely than not to have occurred.

The faculty members, including emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz, said the policy should be retracted because it denies the accused access to legal counsel, knowledge of the accusations against them and the right to question witnesses, potentially exposing students to “unfair and inappropriate discipline.” It also holds one party more culpable when both are impaired by alcohol or drug use.

‘Profoundly Complex’

“The university is confident that the policy and procedures meet their promise of a thoughtful, fair and consistent approach to these profoundly complex and sensitive situations,” Jeff Neal, a Harvard spokesman, said in a statement. “The university appreciates that not every member of the community will agree with every aspect of the new approach,” he said. “This type of discussion is fundamental to any vibrant academic community.”

A committee of faculty, staff and students will advise the school about whether the new policies and procedures can be improved.

The new policy exceeds the scope of Title IX, the law that prohibits gender discrimination in education, the professors said. Harvard is bowing to pressure from the federal government, which can deny funding to schools deemed not in compliance with Title IX, they said.

“We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake,” the professors said. “But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats.”

Harvard is the world’s wealthiest university, with an endowment of $36.4 billion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ondemn-school-s-sexual-misconduct-policy.html

It appears to be a worldwide trend in cases of sexual harassment to simply assume guilt and subject the accused to the modern-day equivalent of a witch trial. Organizations and governments are so scared of being labeled as shelters for "sexual predators" (and in many cases losing vast sums in public funding because of this) that they're willing to throw anyone accused of sexual misconduct under the bus automatically.

 

[ParkCungHee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ngs-be-required-to-conduct-same-sex-weddings/

I'm going to put this here rather then make a new thread.

tl;dr Idaho ministers are now facing charges for not performing a ceremony that, until recently, they would have faced charges for performing.

Bigger problem: Idaho now seems to be mandating religious belief and actions.

 

[Traitorfish]

Eh, as much as I'd tend to err on the side of liberty of conscience, but if you treat your ministry as a commercial venture, you only have so much ground to complain when other people start treating it as one. Honestly, given the attitude towards Christianity the whole enterprise implies, I'm surprised they're passing up the potential revenue stream, which I suppose you could generously take as a sign of their sincerity.

Also!, humorous comment exchange:

The liberal definition of "freedom" includes the state forcing private businesses at rifle point to serve people it does not want to.

Cool story, bro. Do you have a newsletter?

Yup. It's called the Constitution and the Wealth of Nations. Perhaps you'll have time to read them once you get done with the Communist Manifesto.

I'm going to extend the benefit of the doubt and say that this guy knows how to have fun with Poe's Law.

 

[Arwon]

Wait is this a business or a church? If it's a public business as it sounds like, rather thsn a private religious org, I'm not sure they have much grounds for complaint at being subject to anti-discrimination law.

On the other hand, given other US court decisions about businesses with a vaguely religious flavour (rg on contraception) they'd probably win the court case.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Wait is this a business or a church? If it's a public business as it sounds like, rather thsn a private religious org, I'm not sure they have much grounds for complaint at being subject to anti-discrimination law.

Because the service they're being compelled to provide is a religious one. So if this is overturned, the State of Idaho has the power to compel persons to take part in Christian ceremonies.

 

[Old Hippy]

Because the service they're being compelled to provide is a religious one. So if this is overturned, the State of Idaho has the power to compel persons to take part in Christian ceremonies.

at which point they ask the gathering to pray for the souls of the dammed who are here today to be wedded before you...

I don't see this as a long term problem...

 

[Traitorfish]

Because the service they're being compelled to provide is a religious one. So if this is overturned, the State of Idaho has the power to compel persons to take part in Christian ceremonies.

Actually, there's a thought, is there any actual requirement that it be a Christian ceremony, or does it just have to be a ceremony performed by a licensed cleric? If the latter, they could offer a non-denominational ceremony for same-sex couples.

 

[Arwon]

I would think ask they need to do legally is get consent from both parties and pronounce them married?

 

[Traitorfish]

Everyone should just get married by sea captains, really, it would be a lot more straightforward.

 

[Arwon]

Oddly enough I'm about to try to get myself registered as a celebrant to run the ceremony for two friends who want to be as unweddingy as possible.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Actually, there's a thought, is there any actual requirement that it be a Christian ceremony, or does it just have to be a ceremony performed by a licensed cleric? If the latter, they could offer a non-denominational ceremony for same-sex couples.

That would still constitute discrimination wouldn't it? That's still refusing to provide the service in question, and simply offering an alternative service, which would be unacceptable in an actual case of discrimination.

 

[Kyriakos]

^I am positive that state-controlled (through veils or not) media corporations surely never reject hiring on the grounds that the news-media person is of known views against the current government

We should fight the good fight to end the last bastion of discrimination in our planet, which is homosexuals not being 'accepted' by the church. That will solve many issues- or at least one. Or at least one for a small subset of the population. Occasionally. To some relative degree. Anyway there is some potential there.

Ie: another diversion. There is no honest will to help anyone, which is why societal issues seem to be increasing dangerously for some time now.

 

[Traitorfish]

That would still constitute discrimination wouldn't it? That's still refusing to provide the service in question, and simply offering an alternative service, which would be unacceptable in an actual case of discrimination.

Presumably that's where the religious liberty thing comes into it: that the State of Idaho can oblige them to perform a particular commercial service, i.e. performing marriages, but can't oblige participation in a religious ceremony. It might still count as discrimination, but in this particular instance, the laws against discrimination are trumped by other laws.