Maybe I’ve been wrong about the complicity theory after all. Those who are condemning homosexuality know that at least some people are prone to act in a violent way against gays and so by condemning homosexuality they are complicit in incidents (and far, far worse) of violence against gays. So, to avoid being complicit, they should not state their views, right? If they are being consistent about the complicity with sin problem. Huh. Who knew.
No. The complicity theory is not legally tenable, whatever stature it may have among philosophers and religious moral theoreticians. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ "I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality." Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 On Mar 1, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Jean Dudley <jean.dud...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2014, at Fri, Feb 28, 7:11 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. > <gcs...@stthomas.edu> wrote: > >> Now what these two evangelical Christians experienced was plainly >> “discrimination.” > > I’m not sure it was. While I’m not an attorney of any stripe or ilk, I’d say > that what those evangelists experienced was (verbal) antagonism. And while > it was indeed vile and despicable, it is protected under free speech, if I’m > not mistaken, provided no one actively threatened them with bodily harm. > > Discrimination would have occurred if the Jewish shop owner had indeed > refused to serve them because they were evangelists, or at least > discrimination in the legal sense, if I understand it. If someone had begun > beating them while yelling anti-evangelist epithets, that would have been a > hate crime or possibly religiously motivated assault, certainly? > > Discrimination is difficult to pin down; but certainly denying publicly > offered goods and services for reasons other than an inability to pay is > discrimination, isn’t it? > > Once, while leaving the local lesbian watering hole in Providence, RI, a car > full of (I suspect rather drunk) young men yelled “Fucking dyke!” at me. My > immediate response was “I’m a walking dyke. I do my fucking at home!” > > At that point one of them threw a glass bottle which smashed many yards away > from me. > > Discrimination? They didn’t deny me from using public roads, but assault? > Maybe. That bottle was more threat than assault, I think. > > Was I scared, in fear of my life? You better believe it, in spite of my rare > quick response to their taunt. Luckily they sped off, and I was able to get > to my car and go home without any physical damage. But common self > preservation told me that drunk young men are dangerous; that is a lesson I > learned from Matthew Sheppard. My prescience was justified by the > badly-aimed glass bottle. > > So tell me, list members, was I “discriminated” against? Was I assaulted? > At what point did their behavior cross from protected speech to criminal > activity? Did it? > > I never did tell my story to the police. I’d already been told that the > Providence police turned a blind eye on such things, and even worse things > routinely. How could I get justice when I didn’t even have a license plate > number or descriptions of the men? > > All the best, > Jean. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
