Florist's Reply to Discrimination

  • Cutlass

    Posts: 426

    Dec 24, 2015 11:10 AM GMT
    Perhaps you may remember a florist in our state who refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She was fined by the Human Rights Commission because our state law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. She is appealing that decision, and has the backing of a conservative law group that defends people who claim they don't have the freedom to practice their religion.
    In an Op Ed article in our local paper, she wrote that "Rob (the gay man whom she knows)was asking me to choose between my affection for him and my commitment to Christ. As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me. Without Christ, I can do nothing."
    Two letter writers responded to her article. One wrote that "Everyone should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in their personal life, but when someone chooses to engage in commerce, they should not be permitted to deny goods and services to any particular group in the name of religion."
    Another weighed in with "I feel she is unable to distinguish between religious freedom and discrimination......She is not practicing her religion; she is using her religion to justify discrimination."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 2:51 PM GMT
    I agree wholeheartedly with the two letter writers.
  • badbug

    Posts: 800

    Dec 24, 2015 3:23 PM GMT


    Bah, it's a slippery slope of bullshit really.

    Someone's discrimination is always someone else's freedom. I think it really comes down to what we accept as reasonable, and in 2015 just selling them the damn flowers seems the most reasonable.

    In 1015, it would probably seem more reasonable to not sell them the flowers.

    Jeez, it's 2015 almost 2016....i wonder if there will be churches on moon colonies in 3015.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 3:25 PM GMT
    The common thing here is the conservative christian Alliance Defending Freedom. Seems there is a traveling legal circus circulating the n american courts. They actually crushed the competition and are currently the leading for charity organization giving legal aid to the baby jesus.

    Washington
    Florist Barronelle Stutzman was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kristen Waggoner


    Colorado
    baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop also represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco


    Alliance Defending Freedom
    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/01/3429448/alliance-defending-freedom/
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1034

    Dec 24, 2015 4:26 PM GMT
    The woman claims to be "deeply fond" of her gay friend Rob, but she won't sell him a goddamn flower???

    Here's what it says in your Bible, bitch:

    Matthew 25:42-46 "For I was hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal."

    Imagine her surprise if Christianity turns out to be real, and there really is a Hell, and she gets fricaseed!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 4:31 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Religious freedom means one religion may not subjugate another. Because of that freedom, there will never be Sharia here. This is why we liberals fight for our freedoms. For freedom of religion, for freedom of movement, for freedom of assembly, for freedom of speech. It is one of our freedoms and we are not about to give it up to the fears (or fear mongering) of the conservatives.

    It doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want. It means others don't get to do whatever the fuck they want to you. Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to perform human sacrifice, for instance, to satisfy the conditions of your particular religion. There will never be stoning approved in the United States of America.

    Because we have other freedoms as well which we also defend. Where one freedom abuts another, places of social dilemma, we put upon all freedoms such constraint as to foster the most freedoms possibly practiced within each freedom without one freedom crushing the other.

    So even as much as we value the freedom of speech, we place upon it a few constraints in circumstances where a freedom might, say, cause panic in a theater which can harm people, or we might have courts to determine the defamation of mischaracterizing another which might cause harm.

    So while one person has the freedom of commerce and another has the freedom of speech, the freedom of speech does not protect a person from standing outside a person's store and saying they are selling poison to prevent his customers from entering his store when all they are selling is bottled water.

    But we also have freedom of speech and freedom of religion so where you might not be able to mischaracterize a shopkeeper with lies, you might be able to protest a clinic, to protest a funeral in expressing your beliefs. If it can be proved that brings harm--not by magical thinking but with empirical evidence--to other freedoms, then maybe that can be stopped. But those are the dynamics at play in a free society.

    Where we have freedoms of commerce and freedoms against discrimination (embodied in the freedom to pursue happiness), while a person is free to practice their own religion in their own life, they are not allowed to use the freedom of commerce to inflict or otherwise convey their freedom of religion on others who do not so practice.

    Not just does one freedom constrain another, but also it is the very freedom of religion--that not just you have yours, but I also am allowed mine--which constrains that freedom of each so that it does not impede upon the other, which seems self evidently just.

    That is what we liberals fight for when we fight the prejudices of the conservatives. We are fighting for those freedoms which keep us free even at risk of life. Just as we place our soldiers in harms way for the sake of those same freedoms, we do not seek our own safety at the risk of relinquishing those freedoms which our soldiers fight and die for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 4:40 PM GMT
    theantijock saidtheantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Religious freedom means one religion may not subjugate another. Because of that freedom, there will never be Sharia here. This is why we liberals fight for our freedoms. For freedom of religion, for freedom of movement, for freedom of assembly, for freedom of speech. It is one of our freedoms and we are not about to give it up to the fears of the conservatives.

    It doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want. It means others don't get to do whatever the fuck they want to you. Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to perform human sacrifice, for instance, to satisfy the conditions of your particular religion. There will never be stoning approved in the United States of America.

    Because we have other freedoms as well which we also defend. Where one freedom abuts another, places of social dilemma, we put upon all freedoms such constraint as to foster the most freedoms possibly practiced within each freedom without one freedom crushing the other.

    So even as much as we value the freedom of speech, we place upon it a few constraints in circumstances where a freedom might, say, cause panic in a theater which can harm people, or we might have courts to determine the defamation of mischaracterizing another which might cause harm.

    So while one person has the freedom of commerce and another has the freedom of speech, the freedom of speech does not protect a person from standing outside a person's store and saying they are selling poison to prevent his customers from entering his store when all they are selling is bottled water.

    But we also have freedom of speech and freedom of religion so where you might not be able to mischaracterize a shopkeeper with lies, you might be able to protest a clinic, to protest a funeral in expressing your beliefs. If it can be proved that brings harm--not by magical thinking but with empirical evidence--to other freedoms, then maybe that can be stopped. But those are the dynamics at play in a free society.

    Where we have freedoms of commerce and freedoms against discrimination (embodied in the freedom to pursue happiness), while a person is free to practice their own religion in their own life, they are not allowed to use the freedom of commerce to inflict or otherwise convey their freedom of religion on others who do not so practice.

    Not just does one freedom constrain another, but also it is the very freedom of religion--that not just you have yours, but I also am allowed mine--which constrains that freedom of each so that it does not impede upon the other, which seems self evidently just.

    That is what we liberals fight for when we fight the prejudices of the conservatives. We are fighting for those freedoms which keep us free even at risk of life. Just as we place our soldiers in harms way for the sake of those same freedoms, we do not seek our own safety at the risk of relinquishing those freedoms which our soldiers fight and die for.



    extreme liberals like yourself cannot see further than tip of your nose, Europe will be the first to fall in the hands of islam and what will be left, will be stoned to death, raped and beheaded and hanged and more islamists there will be in US higher the chance US will go the same route, why practicing nazism is so bad then? as long as it does not harm anyone it is ok to practice it and idolize it right? But I bet you will be the first to scream when a jew will be killed by a nazi how bad nazis are, but instead you should be saying not all nazis are bad, it's only the extremists, Forget about those beheadings and rapes and killings and oppression caused by islam where it is clearly written in quran, not all muslims are bad, those are just the extreme ones

    extreme liberals are nowhere better than and no less delusional than nazis and islamists

    I think nazism should have it's rightful rebirth, because you know, it is so liberal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 4:54 PM GMT
    bonaparts said
    theantijock saidtheantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Religious freedom means one religion may not subjugate another. Because of that freedom, there will never be Sharia here. This is why we liberals fight for our freedoms. For freedom of religion, for freedom of movement, for freedom of assembly, for freedom of speech. It is one of our freedoms and we are not about to give it up to the fears of the conservatives.

    It doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want. It means others don't get to do whatever the fuck they want to you. Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to perform human sacrifice, for instance, to satisfy the conditions of your particular religion. There will never be stoning approved in the United States of America.

    Because we have other freedoms as well which we also defend. Where one freedom abuts another, places of social dilemma, we put upon all freedoms such constraint as to foster the most freedoms possibly practiced within each freedom without one freedom crushing the other.

    So even as much as we value the freedom of speech, we place upon it a few constraints in circumstances where a freedom might, say, cause panic in a theater which can harm people, or we might have courts to determine the defamation of mischaracterizing another which might cause harm.

    So while one person has the freedom of commerce and another has the freedom of speech, the freedom of speech does not protect a person from standing outside a person's store and saying they are selling poison to prevent his customers from entering his store when all they are selling is bottled water.

    But we also have freedom of speech and freedom of religion so where you might not be able to mischaracterize a shopkeeper with lies, you might be able to protest a clinic, to protest a funeral in expressing your beliefs. If it can be proved that brings harm--not by magical thinking but with empirical evidence--to other freedoms, then maybe that can be stopped. But those are the dynamics at play in a free society.

    Where we have freedoms of commerce and freedoms against discrimination (embodied in the freedom to pursue happiness), while a person is free to practice their own religion in their own life, they are not allowed to use the freedom of commerce to inflict or otherwise convey their freedom of religion on others who do not so practice.

    Not just does one freedom constrain another, but also it is the very freedom of religion--that not just you have yours, but I also am allowed mine--which constrains that freedom of each so that it does not impede upon the other, which seems self evidently just.

    That is what we liberals fight for when we fight the prejudices of the conservatives. We are fighting for those freedoms which keep us free even at risk of life. Just as we place our soldiers in harms way for the sake of those same freedoms, we do not seek our own safety at the risk of relinquishing those freedoms which our soldiers fight and die for.



    extreme liberals like yourself cannot see further than tip of your nose, Europe will be the first to fall in the hands of islam and what will be left, will be stoned to death, raped and beheaded and hanged and more islamists there will be in US higher the chance US will go the same route, why practicing nazism is so bad then? as long as it does not harm anyone it is ok to practice it and idolize it right? But I bet you will be the first to scream when a jew will be killed by a nazi how bad nazis are, but instead you should be saying not all nazis are bad, it's only the extremists, Forget about those beheadings and rapes and killings and oppression caused by islam where it is clearly written in quran, not all muslims are bad, those are just the extreme ones

    extreme liberals are nowhere better than and no less delusional than nazis and islamists

    I think nazism should have it's rightful rebirth, because you know, it is so liberal


    Does anyone have anything challenging to say?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 5:01 PM GMT
    you have nothing valid to say so it is easier to hide behind and arrogant empty response, I guess that is your way of showing liberalism
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 24, 2015 5:04 PM GMT
    bonaparts saidyou have nothing valid to say so it is easier to hide behind and arrogant empty response, I guess that is your way of showing liberalism

    172
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 5:36 PM GMT
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 5:59 PM GMT
    theantijock saidhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie


    that is not rebirth of nazism, I wish all extreme liberals would move to an isalmic countries and preach their liberalism to those refugees and other islamists and maybe tell them they are gay, why not? Why they only preach their ideas where refugees and illegal immigrants are the minority, a small minority

    And hopefully nazism will have it's proper rebirth in this liberal world, that would be wonderful
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 6:02 PM GMT
    America is not Europe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 6:10 PM GMT
    theantijock saidAmerica is not Europe.



    I was expecting something more profound from you, I guess you are not capable of a proper response to both of my replies, but what can I expect from someone like you, all you can do is throw some utopic nonsense that only works if other have the same way of thinking

    america is not europe - that is something I would expect from a delusional person with incapable thinking I mean even a child would try to give direct answers or honestly would say it does not know, while your responses are just sad
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 7:17 PM GMT
    If you think that my explanation of freedoms in America is utopian, when what I described were the dynamics -- even involving risk of loss of life (not quite the standard utopia) -- then you need to learn more on your own about us. You don't hear it from me, not because I am unable to explain it but because you are unwilling to hear it.

    We already have about four decades of experience with Muslim immigrants here particularly from Iran and the days of the shaw. If you've been reading my posts, then you'd know that our experience of assimilating incoming cultures is not the same as Europe's experience.

    Here's a past post of mine on that from another thread for your reading pleasure:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Americans
    Iranian-Americans or Persian-Americans, are Americans of Iranian ancestry or people possessing Iranian and American dual citizenship. Iranian-Americans are among the highest-educated people in the United States.[11][12] They have historically excelled in business, academia, the sciences, arts, and entertainment – but have traditionally shied away from participating in American politics and other civic activities


    How well have they assimilated?

    A 2012 national telephone survey of a sample of 400 Iranian-Americans, commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans and conducted by Zogby Research Services, asked the respondents what their religions were. The responses broke down as follows: Muslim: 31%, atheist/realist/humanist: 11%, agnostic: 8%, Baha’i: 7%, Jewish: 5%, Protestant: 5%, Roman Catholic: 2%, Zoroastrian: 2%, "Other": 15%, and "No response": 15%.[10] The survey had a cooperation rate of 31.2%.[10] The margin of error for the results was +/- 5 percentage points, with higher margins of error in sub-groups.[10] Prominently, the number of Muslims decreased from 42% in 2008 to 31% in 2012.[10][38]

    ...According to Harvard University professor Robert D. Putnam, the average Iranian is slightly less religious than the average American.[39] Iranian-Americans are distancing themselves from Islam, having accepted the negative characteristics associated with the religion

    ...The Small Business Administration (SBA) conducted a study that found Iranian immigrants among the top 20 immigrant groups with the highest rate of business ownership, contributing substantially to the U.S. economy.

    ...According to Census 2000, 50.9 percent of Iranian immigrants have attained a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 28.0 percent national average.[11] According to the latest census data available, more than one in four Iranian-Americans holds a master's or doctoral degree


    America is not the Middle East. America is not Europe.


    Meanwhile, back at the florist's....

    flowers-for-wedding.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 7:45 PM GMT
    theantijock saidIf you think that my explanation of freedoms in America is utopian, when what I described were the dynamics -- even involving risk of loss of life (not quite the standard utopia) -- then you need to learn more on your own about us. You don't hear it from me, not because I am unable to explain it but because you are unwilling to hear it.

    We already have about four decades of experience with Muslim immigrants here particularly from Iran and the days of the shaw. If you've been reading my posts, then you'd know that our experience of assimilating incoming cultures is not the same as Europe's experience.

    Here's a past post of mine on that from another thread for your reading pleasure:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Americans
    Iranian-Americans or Persian-Americans, are Americans of Iranian ancestry or people possessing Iranian and American dual citizenship. Iranian-Americans are among the highest-educated people in the United States.[11][12] They have historically excelled in business, academia, the sciences, arts, and entertainment – but have traditionally shied away from participating in American politics and other civic activities


    How well have they assimilated?

    A 2012 national telephone survey of a sample of 400 Iranian-Americans, commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans and conducted by Zogby Research Services, asked the respondents what their religions were. The responses broke down as follows: Muslim: 31%, atheist/realist/humanist: 11%, agnostic: 8%, Baha’i: 7%, Jewish: 5%, Protestant: 5%, Roman Catholic: 2%, Zoroastrian: 2%, "Other": 15%, and "No response": 15%.[10] The survey had a cooperation rate of 31.2%.[10] The margin of error for the results was +/- 5 percentage points, with higher margins of error in sub-groups.[10] Prominently, the number of Muslims decreased from 42% in 2008 to 31% in 2012.[10][38]

    ...According to Harvard University professor Robert D. Putnam, the average Iranian is slightly less religious than the average American.[39] Iranian-Americans are distancing themselves from Islam, having accepted the negative characteristics associated with the religion

    ...The Small Business Administration (SBA) conducted a study that found Iranian immigrants among the top 20 immigrant groups with the highest rate of business ownership, contributing substantially to the U.S. economy.

    ...According to Census 2000, 50.9 percent of Iranian immigrants have attained a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 28.0 percent national average.[11] According to the latest census data available, more than one in four Iranian-Americans holds a master's or doctoral degree


    America is not the Middle East. America is not Europe.


    Meanwhile, back at the florist's....

    flowers-for-wedding.jpg


    and if those statistics are true, which 'i doubt, since only 1/3 of people responded that just shows one thing, american free speech and blatant intolerance towards a violent religion can give positive results and that is not thanks to utopic thinking from extreme liberals like yourself, that is thanks to people who are conscious, you are not one of them, if USA would be extremely liberal it would be overtaken, geographical location plays a big role as well, usa has relatively low percentage of muslim immigrants but all the fails of extreme liberalism can be seen in European countries so America might not be Europe yet, yet they both have lot in common, utopic extreme liberals like yourself. and the only reason you have those freedoms is because they are not overtaken by something extreme, so like I said, I want to see you preaching your utopic weak nonsense in isalmic countries and what effect it will give, but let's face the reality you will not get far and it's no reocket science more of those people are in the country, the more islam will show it's true colors

    so overall it is thanks to some delusional liberal extremists why Europe is failing and it is as delusional to think USA might not have the same faith
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 9:19 PM GMT
    bonaparts saidand if those statistics are true, which 'i doubt, since only 1/3 of people responded that just shows one thing, american free speech and blatant intolerance towards a violent religion can give positive results and that is not thanks to utopic thinking from extreme liberals like yourself, that is thanks to people who are conscious, you are not one of them, if USA would be extremely liberal it would be overtaken, geographical location plays a big role as well, usa has relatively low percentage of muslim immigrants but all the fails of extreme liberalism can be seen in European countries so America might not be Europe yet, yet they both have lot in common, utopic extreme liberals like yourself. and the only reason you have those freedoms is because they are not overtaken by something extreme, so like I said, I want to see you preaching your utopic weak nonsense in isalmic countries and what effect it will give, but let's face the reality you will not get far and it's no reocket science more of those people are in the country, the more islam will show it's true colors

    so overall it is thanks to some delusional liberal extremists why Europe is failing and it is as delusional to think USA might not have the same faith


    There are more than 11 million Mexican immigrants currently in the United States and yet the sombrero has yet to come into fashion.

    The only interesting issue that you stumbled upon is the current amount of emigrants which is due to fleeing war, which happens. And that's nothing compared to what could happen once ocean levels begin to more so rise. So the world will have to learn how to accommodate rapid, large movements of populations.

    Other than that, you've not said one interesting or correct thing there. So I won't even bother point by point. It's too stupid to address.

    I'll offer this though which I've also posted previously on Muslim immigration/assimilation:

    This is from...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research
    The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed in 1981 from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is a conservative American think tank...


    https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/comparing-immigrant-assimilation-north-america-and-europe-5846.html
    Comparing Immigrant Assimilation in North America and Europe

    the state of immigrant assimilation—the degree of similarity between the native- and foreign-born populations—in the United States. This report provides new information on the characteristics of newly arrived immigrants and the pace of their integration into society

    •Most of the United States' major immigrant groups were more assimilated in 2009 than they were in 2000.

    •Upon arrival, the most recent immigrants are significantly more assimilated along cultural and civic lines than their counterparts of a decade ago.

    •On the whole, immigrants in the United States are more assimilated than those in most European countries

    •Immigrants from Canada rank first in terms of overall assimilation, largely as a consequence of their high rate of naturalization.

    Breaking assimilation down still further, by both origin and destination, shows the United States to be ahead of most of Europe but behind Canada in a wide variety of categories.

    •Muslim immigrants, identified by data on religion in some nations and by country of birth in others, are most integrated in Canada, followed closely by the United States.

    •Muslim immigrants in Italy and Switzerland are much less assimilated than Mexican and Central American immigrants are in the United States. Muslim immigrants' standing in Spain is roughly equal to the standing of Mexicans and Central Americans in the United States.

    •The United States' ranking behind Canada but ahead of European nations also holds for immigrants from China and Southeast Asia. Assimilation in the United States is ahead of all but one European country for immigrants from India and Eastern Europe.

    ...it is clear that the United States, compared to the other countries studied, is doing a good job of absorbing newcomers...

    Here's their full report http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_64.pdf
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Dec 24, 2015 10:56 PM GMT
    bonaparts saidyou have nothing valid to say so it is easier to hide behind and arrogant empty response, I guess that is your way of showing liberalism


    Well, if what you've posted is your way of showing conservatism, no thanks. You can choose to live in fear. I won't. You've heard the expression, "Consent of the governed"? That natural law is why I don't fear the threats you pose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 11:21 PM GMT


    Give it a rest, guys. Merry Christmas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 26, 2015 6:10 AM GMT
    bonaparts said
    theantijock saidIf you think that my explanation of freedoms in America is utopian, when what I described were the dynamics -- even involving risk of loss of life (not quite the standard utopia) -- then you need to learn more on your own about us. You don't hear it from me, not because I am unable to explain it but because you are unwilling to hear it.

    We already have about four decades of experience with Muslim immigrants here particularly from Iran and the days of the shaw. If you've been reading my posts, then you'd know that our experience of assimilating incoming cultures is not the same as Europe's experience.

    Here's a past post of mine on that from another thread for your reading pleasure:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Americans
    Iranian-Americans or Persian-Americans, are Americans of Iranian ancestry or people possessing Iranian and American dual citizenship. Iranian-Americans are among the highest-educated people in the United States.[11][12] They have historically excelled in business, academia, the sciences, arts, and entertainment – but have traditionally shied away from participating in American politics and other civic activities


    How well have they assimilated?

    A 2012 national telephone survey of a sample of 400 Iranian-Americans, commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans and conducted by Zogby Research Services, asked the respondents what their religions were. The responses broke down as follows: Muslim: 31%, atheist/realist/humanist: 11%, agnostic: 8%, Baha’i: 7%, Jewish: 5%, Protestant: 5%, Roman Catholic: 2%, Zoroastrian: 2%, "Other": 15%, and "No response": 15%.[10] The survey had a cooperation rate of 31.2%.[10] The margin of error for the results was +/- 5 percentage points, with higher margins of error in sub-groups.[10] Prominently, the number of Muslims decreased from 42% in 2008 to 31% in 2012.[10][38]

    ...According to Harvard University professor Robert D. Putnam, the average Iranian is slightly less religious than the average American.[39] Iranian-Americans are distancing themselves from Islam, having accepted the negative characteristics associated with the religion

    ...The Small Business Administration (SBA) conducted a study that found Iranian immigrants among the top 20 immigrant groups with the highest rate of business ownership, contributing substantially to the U.S. economy.

    ...According to Census 2000, 50.9 percent of Iranian immigrants have attained a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 28.0 percent national average.[11] According to the latest census data available, more than one in four Iranian-Americans holds a master's or doctoral degree


    America is not the Middle East. America is not Europe.


    Meanwhile, back at the florist's....

    flowers-for-wedding.jpg

    ...


    Using Iranians as an example of assimilation is a bit misleading. Before the revolution, under the Shah, Iranians were some of the most educated (men and women), westernized, and least religious than their other middle eastern brethren. So the ones who fled the theocracy established after the revolution were prime candidates for assimilation as they were already quite western in their ideas, dress, and education. Their children would easily assimilate. Remember the revolution was a backlash against the encroachment of western culture into Islamic culture.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 26, 2015 6:04 PM GMT
    UndercoverMan saidUsing Iranians as an example of assimilation is a bit misleading. Before the revolution, under the Shah, Iranians were some of the most educated (men and women), westernized, and least religious than their other middle eastern brethren. So the ones who fled the theocracy established after the revolution were prime candidates for assimilation as they were already quite western in their ideas, dress, and education. Their children would easily assimilate. Remember the revolution was a backlash against the encroachment of western culture into Islamic culture.


    Oh, so in other words what you are saying is that not all Muslims are all bad as you and your conservaclique love to mischaracterize. Well, why didn’t you just say so in the first place?

    But misleading? No. Not even a bit for a number of reasons. Not only did I show this study of Iranian immigrants but also I showed a conservative think tank’s study of the immigration/assimilation experiences (which does not focus on Iranians) in America as compared to Europe which you seem to have misleadingly (a bit), inadvertently missed the mention. But besides that, it should be obvious or even if it isn’t then it should be at least relatable once realized, that those who immigrated from Iran in the 70s/80s have since likely been bringing over other relatives? Yes? Isn’t that how immigration often works. So likely there was a whole variety of mind set of Muslims in that mix over the period of the last 20-40 years who immigrated here and assimilated well enough that there hasn't been any real issues, certainly not ones of Republican doom & gloom. I know when I go to the supermarket there are often women in burkas, so some have kept to their ways, and I’ve noted that even when I go to swim laps I’ve seen a girl in a birkini there.

    I do look at that as oppression, especially the kid in the pool. I do have issues with hidden faces. I joke to myself that it’s early Halloween but were that very frequent, I’d think there’d be societal backlash. No shoes no shirt no service. No sunglasses in banks. We do allow for those restrictions upon our freedom of movement.

    Well, at least some of us do

    flying-nun-o.gif

    You can’t have everyone in an open society hiding their face. That seems pretty obvious for practical reason.

    nungun.jpg

    If society has the right to pull cars over for no reason they certainly can pull veils off faces. But that they want to wear head covers or drapes for jogging, that’s their weird business. I don’t give a shit about that stuff and I’d defend their right to that dress. I would not defend their right to wear a birkini at a public pool but I’d simply not say anything (at least until out of earshot and behind their back so as to not embarrass that kid I saw struggling to swim). But I might make that a safety issue for the pool lifeguard. That might be valid.

    So I don't view this as insurmountable. I do get that the rate of immigration in Europe is currently overwhelming so I can kind of understand bonehead freaking out a tad, especially at his young age and showing elsewhere his refusal to think things out. It's a little harder for me to understand American sentiment similar, given our geographic distance, given our immigrant experience, given the strength of us: be that our culture, our tradition, our laws. Sharia in America? By all means counselor, make your best case because we are not that. America is not Europe.

    9/11 was fucking horrible, but that happened before all this current immigration nonsense. So that can happen regardless of what are a country's immigration policies (because it can happen on a visa alone). We need to look more at what is the actual assimilation experience in a country and as the conservative think tank's study shows, North America (America and the other America, Canada) do a very good job.

    Be that, this assimilating America, a source of pride, not of fear.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 26, 2015 9:16 PM GMT
    considering that photographers , bakers and florists go on a schedule I think that someone could "object" to providing a service without broadcasting the reason.

    I think in this situation the business goes the step to say "we are not serving because of X" makes them vulnerable to the full and open interpretation of the law.

    It would be impossible to prove someone was discriminating if they said they were unavailable or they only do events at certain venues.

    When you order flowers for a wedding, its a contract. Im struggling how in the law you can force someone into a contract.