I was suggesting it was neutral in that it doesn't explicitly state "X is good" or "Y is bad".
Then you are being intellectually dishonest because:
A. It
definitely has an "X is good" message. You even acknowledge this fact later in your post.
B. There is no logical reason to limit neutrality to only explicit messages when it can be demonstrated that implicit messages can often be far worse (and I
will demonstrate this in a moment).
In this context, I consider it a scale rather than a binary. No message is completely neutral but some messages will be within a middle ground rather than at an extreme end of the scale.
Then you are using an arbitrary metric and artificially labeling things as "neutral" based on this arbitrary metric.
Example: "People have different opinions about homosexuality, and everyone feels that their opinion is the correct opinion" is a message that actually
is neutral. Notice how it doesn't take any side? It's a totally neutral message. Nobody could logically refuse to print that message based on a moral grounds.
Your approach simply allows you to artificially call things neutral base don your decision to call them neutral. Using that same standard, I could claim that pretty much anything qualifies as neutral.
The point is that the t-shirt in question has an implicit reference to homosexuality rather than a direct statement about it.
See? You admit right here that you were being dishonest when you claimed it was neutral. You know full well the message isn't neutral, so why do you keep pretending that it is?
But lets get back to your decision to limit thigns to explicit references. This is nonsense, since implicit messages are as non-neutral as explicit one's are.
I would support a companies right to not print the following:
Leviticus 20:13
On the basis that it is against that individual's morality to promote the execution of homosexuals. Nothing about religion at all, but instead about the implied message.
See, the explicit mention of Leviticus 20:13 is itself an
implicit message that all homosexual should be put to death. I think most people would agree with me that an implicit reference to slaughtering homosexuals for being homosexuals is actually than the explicit claim of "God Hates Fags".
A t-shirt for a Church Camp was my example of something with an implicit reference to Christianity without a direct statement about it.
If you want to make a comparison, let's be more honest about it. Let's say it's a Christian group that is making T-shirts for an event called the Leviticus 20:13 Festival.
That comparison is far more accurate. Would you oppose the right of a printer to decide "I won't print a "Leviticus 20:13 Festival" T-shirt because it is against my morality?
I mean, by the standards you have arbitrarily created, that's a "neutral" T-shirt, right?
So would I (I'd think they were idiots but I'd support the right).
So why do you oppose this groups right to refuse to print these T-shirts?
Oh, I know. You've used your arbitrary scale to determine that merry Christmas is less neutral than Gay pride is.
I wouldn't support them refusing because the people asking for it were Christian.
Neither would I.
It's a difficult balance to strike though.
It's not difficult at all, actually. One must simply be honest.
What I'm objecting to is the idea that the alleged discrimination is OK and that we should just let it happen because it's free speech.
At
worst, my initial claim in this thread was neutral. At no point did I imply that their discrimination was OK. I only pointed out that their discrimination is based not on
who is making the statement, but on what that statement
is.
But as far as their choice to discriminate goes, I've been very
non-neutral. I have even stated that I think their decision to not print the message is an immoral one. I also think their opposition to homosexuality is immoral. What I think about their actions morally is irrelevant to my analysis of their legal right to take those actions.
There is also the implication (though not in relation to your comments) that this is more justifiable because the printer identified as a Christian and that a non-Christian wouldn't be given as much leeway.
Ironically, the above statement proves my point that your decision to call the message neutral despite it's implicit position is not honest.
Nothing. The allegation is that the refusal was on the basis of sexuality rather than the contents of the t-shirt. It's a complicated and probably impossible thing to actually determine of course.
False, unfoudned allegations are made all the time. Their presence means nothing.
The fact of the matter is that the message
wasn't neutral and there is nothing which indicates that the printing company is being dishonest when they claim it was the message, not the group, that was rejected.
That's a totally unsupported assumption on your part. Unless there is an example of openly homosexual customers ordering completely unrelated printing, nobody knows what they'd do it that situation.
Actually, it my assertion is supported by two facts:
1. They sought out and found another printing company that would honor the price they quoted for these shirts.
2. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they are not being honest when they make the assertion that it was the message, not the group, that was rejected.
The problem is that the allegations of discrimination based on sexual orientation are not supported by any facts in this the situation. At best, they are a hypothesis that has not been tested in any way. Whereas the reasoning given for the discrimination, where the printing company explained that they were discriminating based on the message,
is supported by the facts.
In fact, the facts of the case actually provide evidence that the allegations are likely to be false allegations. The fact that the printing company made sure that this group would still receive services at the price they quoted is an important fact that has been ignored. All that the company actually accomplished was avoiding making those shirts themselves. They did not prevent the shirts form being made, and even to steps to assure that those shirts
would be made. This is
not the type of behavior one expects from people who are discriminating against the
people. It's exactly the behavior one might expect from someone who does not wish to print the message for personal reasons, however.
So the assertions I have made are most definitely supported by the available evidence. It's the opposite assertion that isn't supported by any evidence.
