Oklahoma Joes Fundraiser Kerfuffle

[Gaspar]

Communists don't typically tolerate religion in general, unless it can be regulated by the state.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Communists don't typically tolerate religion in general, unless it can be regulated by the state.

That's always been my impression, so the whole concept that they could be Commies just didn't make sense.  Especially since one of them (Monk from the Order of Cistercians) was arguably the best man I have ever known.  (Rev Dan Allen was close second - just my opinion...)

[cannon_fodder]

Guido,  it appears that you understand how what Joe did would be bad if he did it to Catholics, Muslims, Jews... but when done to people who are atheists it is OK.  It is their fault because they didn't make it clear enough that they did not advance Christianity (contrary to what you continue to say, advancing atheism is not their mission).  Its THEIR fault they were discriminated against... said everyone who discriminated against someone ever.

At the end of the day, a business owner discriminated against Oklahoma citizens because their religious beliefs were different than his.  In fact, it is the unpopular groups that NEED the protection.  Which is why you have the perception that white Christian males are the persecuted ones (less action needed to protect them).

[Breadburner]

His biz he has the right to refuse service....

[Hoss]

His biz he has the right to refuse service....

He might want to be careful though.  If he bases that on religion (or even a lack thereof), it violates state and federal law, is my understanding.

[Gaspar]

His biz he has the right to refuse service....

He didn't refuse service, in fact, he invited them to stay.  He refused to uphold an agreed upon business transaction, based on religion. 

Completely different.

"I would like to buy that car."   
"Ok, give me $2,000."
"Here is $2,000.  Can I have the keys now?"
"No, you're an atheist."

[AquaMan]

Shocking. Some people just aren't good with words.

Perhaps if I cared enough I would go find a semi-humorous p-shopped internet pic to try to help you understand.

[Gaspar]

To play Devil's advocate (no pun intended).

This group advocates free thought, and "humanist values" in the absence of religious, superstitious, or other traditional moral or framework.  That has an impact on how they can allow themselves to define what is moral or ethical.

Joe has taken an action that is contrary to the concept of the ethic of reciprocity established as the foundation of most religions.  In essence he is engaging in "Free Thought" by advancing the concept that his own personal beliefs and thoughts (no matter what they are) overrule the generally accepted moral behaviors of of society (religious or otherwise).

In reviewing the struggle Humanist organizations have in defining what is moral or ethical (http://www.humanistvalues.org.uk/) and the resistance they encourage in establishing such (because after all, it that would require some degree of finite judgement), one has to come to the conclusion that it would be against the philosophy of Humanism and certainly outside of the general concept of Free Thought to pass judgement on Joe for choosing to break an agreement or contract.  While it would be generally accepted under Humanism to treat people with respect, there is no ethical or moral requirement, because there is no foundation for such.

In fact, for Camp Quest to engage in judgement, and the subsequent organized admonishment of Joe shows little respect for Joe's practice of Free Thought.  While it is true that one of the stated values of Camp Quest is "Integrity" of which typically, honesty or virtue are considered components, unfortunately Camp Quest can only use this value in the most basic of ways without promoting some finite definitions of how a person can be judged as honest or virtuous.  For Free Thinkers, the concept of integrity must remain a fluid concept, otherwise it becomes the component of a belief system, and at odds with their mission.

As long as Joe has done nothing that can be considered against the law, Camp Quest is not being true to their "Values" by persecuting him, because they are engaging in judgment based on some belief that there is an established and finite definition of integrity, virtue, or honesty.  Science provides no such definition, so they are acting contrary to the very mission they profess.

To view the situation from a completely scientific position:
Through an exchange of information, not previously evaluated, Joe came to the late interpretation that this group, Camp Quest, posed a danger (right or wrong, it does not matter).  This caused an immediate adrenal response and triggered the self-preservation instinct, causing Joe to flee from his previous agreement.  Joe had a very typical human experience that happens ever day in the animal world.  To uphold his agreement with Camp Quest, would have been un-natural (and therefore un-scientific) because it would require the concept of moral reciprocity, and the realization that his actions would be judged based on established and finite criteria.

Split a piece of wood.

[custosnox]

He didn't refuse service, in fact, he invited them to stay.  He refused to uphold an agreed upon business transaction, based on religion. 

Completely different.

"I would like to buy that car."   
"Ok, give me $2,000."
"Here is $2,000.  Can I have the keys now?"
"No, you're an atheist."

Try again, they were asked to leave.  And essentially what you laid out is what happened

"I would like to hold a fundraiser here"
"Okay, promote my business"
"Your business has been promoted, we are here for our fundraiser"
"No, you can't, you're an atheist"

[custosnox]

As long as Joe has done nothing that can be considered against the law, Camp Quest is not being true to their "Values" by persecuting him, because they are engaging in judgment based on some belief that there is an established and finite definition of integrity, virtue, or honesty.  Science provides no such definition, so they are acting contrary to the very mission they profess.

I don't have time to sit here and just pick at your entire argument, I'll just pull one part out.  Joe's actions can be considered against the laws, so that completely blows this argument out.  You won't see a lawsuit over it because CQ has decided to focus on the kids, not the incident.  They have also taken the stance that they will not endorse any picket, and request that any that are done are to be strictly informative in nature.  So I would say I they are being pretty true to their "values," and are showing quite a bit of integrity. 

[Breadburner]

I will eat there now.....

[heironymouspasparagus]

I will eat there now.....

Of course you will.  That was understood...

[Conan71]

Joe's actions can be considered against the laws, so that completely blows this argument out.  

A shop keeper can legally refuse service to anyone they please with or without explanation.  Whether or not it's a good idea is a different discussion.

[Hoss]

A shop keeper can legally refuse service to anyone they please with or without explanation.  Whether or not it's a good idea is a different discussion.

Correct, but in this case, since he said he did so because of religious beliefs (or lack thereof), he's likely walking the slippery slope, since it could be construed to violate both federal AND state law.  If he'd have kept his piehole shut, no problems.

[custosnox]

A shop keeper can legally refuse service to anyone they please with or without explanation.  Whether or not it's a good idea is a different discussion.

There are a number of other issues at hand with the legalities of this action, but yes, this kind of situation has been tested in court as discrimination and has been upheld as being so.