Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/init.php on line 97

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/init.php on line 101

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/init.php on line 109

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/init.php on line 120

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/init.php on line 124

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/init.php on line 132

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/init.php on line 201

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/init.php on line 378

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/raptors/public_html/f/includes/class_core.php on line 2514
Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards - haircuts, faith and yada yada yada
Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   The Podium (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/)
-   -   haircuts, faith and yada yada yada (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/haircuts-faith-yada-yada-yada-24050.html)

pzabby 11-16-2012 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfunkie1 (Post 704335)
does an ER surgeon own the hospital?

that's not the point he was getting at. If you look at the law's he stated earlier somewhere, a page back I think. the business is legally entitled to serve you. correct my wording if i'm incorrect as i'm paraphrasing. now I say the barber should ahve the ability to deny service based on his religious faith, which is one of canada's greatest rights given to a citizen or resident, but he can't deny it simply for not wanting to. that is, by definition, if what ligea said was true, illegal

dfunkie1 11-16-2012 06:03 PM

that's not the point i was getting at. the law doesn't matter since the person is practicing their recognized religious rights. that makes it not illegal.

if a muslim doctor opened a muslim hospital, he could practice those rights as often as he wanted since it would be privatized. if a muslim doctor went to a public hospital and those beliefs were part of his terms and conditions, he wouldn't be hired.

pzabby 11-16-2012 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfunkie1 (Post 704368)
that's not the point i was getting at. the law doesn't matter since the person is practicing their recognized religious rights. that makes it not illegal.

if a muslim doctor opened a muslim hospital, he could practice those rights as often as he wanted since it would be privatized. if a muslim doctor went to a public hospital and those beliefs were part of his terms and conditions, he wouldn't be hired.

then yes, I agree with you. It doesn't mean that's how the court will go though. with very little precedent in this area, it'll be interesting to see if canada values humans right to service more or religion. I'd be happier with the former, but the latter is in the right given the constraints we have as a public.

Ligeia 11-16-2012 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjjs (Post 704275)
No. And I think justice should come into play in such a matter.

The fact that you don't think it is ok suggests that your prior statement (roughly paraphrased as "nobody has to do anything they don't want to") is false. There are evidently some cases in which that is not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjjs (Post 704275)
A barbershop hair cut for a woman trying to take down a barbershop so she can sit proud and roar loud - no justification for you - go away annoying person - stop wasting everyones time.

Let me know when the Toronto barbershop industry has collectively given her the cold shoulder and she has been left with the option of paying a ridiculous price at a hair salon, or cutting her own hair in front of the mirror.

So what you are concerned with is the type of service or good offered or refused?

What do you say to those that argue that the right of an individual to refuse offering service/goods can collapse into a community refusing likewise? And if it does collapse into such a situation, how else can we remedy it other than legislating individuals?

Ligeia 11-16-2012 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfunkie1 (Post 704335)
does an ER surgeon own the hospital?

On your view, does that really change whether they're morally culpable? Or are you simply commenting on the state of the law as it currently stands?

Ligeia 11-16-2012 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfunkie1 (Post 704368)
that's not the point i was getting at. the law doesn't matter since the person is practicing their recognized religious rights. that makes it not illegal.

if a muslim doctor opened a muslim hospital, he could practice those rights as often as he wanted since it would be privatized. if a muslim doctor went to a public hospital and those beliefs were part of his terms and conditions, he wouldn't be hired.

As you may have seen earlier, I disagree with the sense in which I think you're using privatized. No man is an island, and I'm not sure that the type of business transactions we're talking about are either. This is partly why Smith's allegory of the "Invisible Hand" (which is something he didn't make a big deal out of, but which has been amplified in economics today) makes sense.

You'll also have seen that I don't think it is enough to say "This is my religious belief" or "This is a matter of personal conscience." We don't permit blatant discrimination no matter how backed by religion or personal conscience that discrimination may be. As I argued earlier, the justification should be provided by either pointing to a fact which cannot be disputed, or to competing values. If the latter, we should agree to the values which are least counter-productive to our practical goals (like building a co-operative society with a high degree of justified trust in market transactions). If it does not follow one of these two forks, then it is arbitrary and shouldn't, and possibly can't, be defended.

Note that I am focusing on a more abstract conception of what makes something right, or justifiable. If your perspective is that the law as already crafted describes what is right and is the ultimate grounds to justify any action, then I will not be able to sway you, but we should perhaps discuss this further if you think that is the case.

bjjs 11-17-2012 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ligeia (Post 704437)
The fact that you don't think it is ok suggests that your prior statement (roughly paraphrased as "nobody has to do anything they don't want to") is false. There are evidently some cases in which that is not true.

It's not false; the surgeon doesn't have to provide his service. I don't think he is justified to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ligeia (Post 704437)
So what you are concerned with is the type of service or good offered or refused?

What do you say to those that argue that the right of an individual to refuse offering service/goods can collapse into a community refusing likewise? And if it does collapse into such a situation, how else can we remedy it other than legislating individuals?

I'm not concerned, it's not just the type of service or good - it's the entire story. It's frivolous.

I say it's a fair argument; I say legislate away well before any sign of a collapse.

Does this story signal a collapse?

pzabby 11-17-2012 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjjs (Post 704467)
It's not false; the surgeon doesn't have to provide his service. I don't think he is justified to do so.



I'm not concerned, it's not just the type of service or good - it's the entire story. It's frivolous.

I say it's a fair argument; I say legislate away well before any sign of a collapse.

Does this story signal a collapse?

An er surgeon is legally obliged to do all I'm his or her ability to help the patient


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24