We are rapidly approaching the point of 'thoughtcrime'

[JTScribe]

Jewelry store sign prompts same-sex couple to ask for refund - Newfoundland & Labrador - CBC News

"A same-sex couple from St. John's is upset after discovering the jewelry store that sold them their engagement rings has posted a sign that seems to oppose same-sex marriage — but one of the store's owners says he's allowed to post his religious beliefs."

. . .

"Jardon said he won't apologize for his beliefs."I feel really bad that [White] feels that we would in any way try to hurt or discriminate against her, but we will not retract from what we believe. I cannot say, 'Well because you feel bad, I will stop believing what I believe,'" he said.
"When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see [LGBT rainbow flags], and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don't have a problem with them. I accept it. I chose to come to Canada... and we accept the whole package... I don't discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. For the same reason, I ask to have the same respect in return, especially when it's in my own business."

I would say this is pretty much the textbook definition of slippery slope - we have gone past the point where tolerance is enough, we are now apparently at the point where approval is to be mandated.

 

[rambone]

It is well within a customer's rights to ask for a refund. It is also a business owner's right to hang signs and deal exclusively with the customers he chooses.

If we enjoy the right of free association with one another, then we are also allowed to disassociate with people.

Thought crime may be on the way, but that would imply some sort of government force or mandate. Here, there is none.

 

[JTScribe]

I would imagine that custom jewelry is non-refundable. I assume most jewelry is; I know I was unable to return a store-bought necklace I got for a girlfriend I broke up with before I gave it to her.

Thoughtcrime may imply government intervention to you, but I would argue there is very much such a thing as a cultural thoughtcrime. What's the line in the Rush song, 'conform or be cast out'?

This is Memories Pizza taken to the next level. No actual action was taken against this couple, in fact they presumably were receiving the service they paid for, but the opinion they assumed the shopkeeper to have wasn't politically correct, so they want to destroy him. Seems legit.

 

[rambone]

I would imagine that custom jewelry is non-refundable. I assume most jewelry is; I know I was unable to return a store-bought necklace I got for a girlfriend I broke up with before I gave it to her.

You are probably right. The store probably has a policy regarding running jewelry based on change of heart. It would not bother me if the refund was denied.

 

[HoughMade]

As long as the dispute stays private, I've no problem with it.

...I fear it will not stay private, though. Step 1, blab all over the media. Step 2, small but vocal group outraged. Step 3, weak willed politicians decide to make a private matter, a matter of law. It's been going on for a long time.

 

[jamil]

It is well within a customer's rights to ask for a refund. It is also a business owner's right to hang signs and deal exclusively with the customers he chooses.

If we enjoy the right of free association with one another, then we are also allowed to disassociate with people.

Thought crime may be on the way, but that would imply some sort of government force or mandate. Here, there is none.

I know you're addressing just the "thought crime" aspect. But what's in play here is one side telling the other, hey, c'mon, I acknowledge your right to believe what you want, please be intellectually honest and allow me the same.

It's said that laws reflect the values of society. If that's true, I do see things getting much worse rather than better. It seems to me if laws reflect society's values, the best place to oppose the idea of governing people's thoughts is within society. That's what's happening in this story.

Even though I thought Indiana's RFRA was a really bad idea, I adamantly oppose the kind of ****storm aftermath. People in society who want to maintain the right to free thought should oppose society using ridicule as a way to stifle free thought that they don't like. If we allow this kind of social thought policing to continue it's not hard to imagine a future where that task is placed on government. Of course it isn't very effective to oppose it when Social conservatives are just as willing to legislate their social standards as would be thought police are to legislate theirs.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

As long as the dispute stays private, I've no problem with it.

...I fear it will not stay private, though. Step 1, blab all over the media. Step 2, small but vocal group outraged. Step 3, weak willed politicians decide to make a private matter, a matter of law. It's been going on for a long time.

Don't forget the "hand-wringers" joining in with Step 2.

 

[JTScribe]

My favorite part of the article is this: "The couple now believes the rings they ordered have been tainted by having been fashioned by jeweler Esau Jardon's hands"

 

[mrjarrell]

My favorite part of the article is this: "The couple now believes the rings they ordered have been tainted by having been fashioned by jeweler Esau Jardon's hands"

And they would be right. While it is subjective the taint is there for them. The best thing the jeweler could do is return their money and refuse to do business with whomever he chooses in the future. The fact that he chose to do business initially shows that he is perhaps the one looking for publicity here. The couple just wanted their rings. As has been discussed in other similar threads here before, "would you want a cake from someone who hated you?". They don't want the rings. Give them their money back and go your separate ways.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As long as the dispute stays private, I've no problem with it.

...I fear it will not stay private, though. Step 1, blab all over the media. Step 2, small but vocal group outraged. Step 3, weak willed politicians decide to make a private matter, a matter of law. It's been going on for a long time.

The dispute will stay private (in the legal sense). The rings were custom made. They ain't getting a refund. This isn't thought crime.

 

[Dead Duck]

Thoughtcrime?


***REPORTED***

 

[BogWalker]

And they would be right. While it is subjective the taint is there for them. The best thing the jeweler could do is return their money and refuse to do business with whomever he chooses in the future. The fact that he chose to do business initially shows that he is perhaps the one looking for publicity here. The couple just wanted their rings. As has been discussed in other similar threads here before, "would you want a cake from someone who hated you?". They don't want the rings. Give them their money back and go your separate ways.

The jeweler seems to have no problem making jewelry for people who he disagrees with. He gave them their rings just as they asked. They're the ones making the fuss because they don't personally like the man who made what they asked for. It's like getting the cake, liking the cake, and then finding out you hate the baker. Not his problem you don't like him; he more than happily served you. You paid a man for his work, and you got it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And they would be right. While it is subjective the taint is there for them. The best thing the jeweler could do is return their money and refuse to do business with whomever he chooses in the future. The fact that he chose to do business initially shows that he is perhaps the one looking for publicity here. The couple just wanted their rings. As has been discussed in other similar threads here before, "would you want a cake from someone who hated you?". They don't want the rings. Give them their money back and go your separate ways.

...and the labor put into making those rings? Why should the. Business owner eat the costs?

 

[mrjarrell]

...and the labor put into making those rings? Why should the. Business owner eat the costs?

He's the one that put up the sign denying association to gay couples. All they want is their money back. Why should they have to eat the costs of the rings rather than the guy who decided to fly his bigot flag after he'd already made them. If he had previously had his banner up, I have little doubt they would have gone elsewhere. He, seemingly acted under fraudulent pretenses.

 

[HoughMade]

They have the rings, the Jeweler has the money. That's the state of affairs. All this "why should they have to....." Sounds like you want government involved.

 

[JTScribe]

He gave them their money back. Somehow I doubt the social justice mob will be satisfied.

 

[JTScribe]

He's the one that put up the sign denying association to gay couples. All they want is their money back. Why should they have to eat the costs of the rings rather than the guy who decided to fly his bigot flag after he'd already made them. If he had previously had his banner up, I have little doubt they would have gone elsewhere. He, seemingly acted under fraudulent pretenses.

You refuse to participate in our gay wedding ceremony by providing goods or services because you're a Christian? How dare you!

You provided U.S. goods and services for our gay wedding ceremony and you are a Christian? How dare you!

 

[mrjarrell]

He gave them their money back. Somehow I doubt the social justice mob will be satisfied.

If they got their money back then there's nothing to see here.

 

[mrjarrell]

You refuse to participate in our gay wedding ceremony by providing goods or services because you're a Christian? How dare you!

You provided U.S. goods and services for our gay wedding ceremony and you are a Christian? How dare you!

This makes less sense than usual.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He's the one that put up the sign denying association to gay couples. All they want is their money back. Why should they have to eat the costs of the rings rather than the guy who decided to fly his bigot flag after he'd already made them. If he had previously had his banner up, I have little doubt they would have gone elsewhere. He, seemingly acted under fraudulent pretenses.

His sign says "the sanctity of marriage is being attacked" - that's all. That can apply to half-a million different things. Children out of wedlock, gay marriage, adultery.... the list goes on and on. To say he was acting under false pretenses, you'd have to convince me that he didn't put the sign up simply so he could serve that particular couple. Sorry MJ, once the work was done, they're on the hook for the labor. They can get whatever portion of their funds which covers materials which they won't be taking, but as far as work done, they don't deserve a penny. People don't won't for free.