Quebec Passes Bill-62 - Bans Face Coverings For Government Services

[JM_]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

1 he's american so they have different laws. and 2, he's talking about his thoughts on where the process "should" go, not the process of today.  I completely agree with him on where things should go. ,

 

He saw them handing out flyers outside prior.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/10/christian-cake-bakers-and-gay-coffee-sho

. 

 

 

What the "process" he's talking about is being free to discriminate where he feels its ok to. So he doesn't like marriage equality, so in his mind thats the "government" getting in  "the way" somehow. But if we had a society where everyone could apply this logic to to things that they don't like it would be a pretty awful country to live in. You clearly dont like what happened to that person handing out flyers but why aren't you supporting that business persons "right" to tell the pro-lifers to move on?

 

we live in a society that tries to reduce discrimination. Your chosen religious beliefs don't trump the charter of rights. You do not get to openly discriminate against people. 

[JM_]

51 minutes ago, riffraff said:

White male.

that narrows it down 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

He saw them handing out flyers outside prior.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/10/christian-cake-bakers-and-gay-coffee-sho

I think in this case you could argue that the patron's don't have a protected right to chant or hand out flyers in a private place of business. In the US you do not have a protected right to protest on private property. So if they were bothering people with speeches or flyers thats not a protected thing and the owner is within his rights to kick them out. But if they were outside the shop on the sidewalk and not blocking anyone's entry thats ok. 

 

Can I protest on private property?

As a rule, the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to engage in free-speech activities on private property unless you own or lease the property, or the owner has given you permission to use the property for speech. But you may canvass door-to-door in residential areas, unless the homeowner has put up a "no solicitors" sign.

 

https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/free-speech-protests-demonstrations

[ForsbergTheGreat]

40 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

What the "process" he's talking about is being free to discriminate where he feels its ok to. So he doesn't like marriage equality, so in his mind thats the "government" getting in  "the way" somehow. But if we had a society where everyone could apply this logic to to things that they don't like it would be a pretty awful country to live in.

No, because is a free market, you go out of business pretty quickly.. It's not like there's only one bakery.   Freedom to practice religion is also a human right.  As long as i'm not endangering anyone you can't force me to commit an act against my religious right. 

 

You have to keep in mind the context as well,  if a gay person wanted to buy a cake or donut, they were more than welcome to, it was the service request of providing for the wedding they didn't agree with. 

 

Quote

 

You clearly dont like what happened to that person handing out flyers but why aren't you supporting that business persons "right" to tell the pro-lifers to move on?

i actually don't care, I'm completely fine with what that person did, if what he did isn't causing anyone any harm feel free. Those people are more than welcome to go to one of the million other coffee shops. 

 

Do you think Morman temples should be forced to allow gay couples to get married there?

[JM_]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No, because is a free market, you go out of business pretty quickly.. It's not like there's only one bakery.   Freedom to practice religion is also a human right.  As long as i'm not endangering anyone you can't force me to commit an act against my religious right. 

 

You have to keep in mind the context as well,  if a gay person wanted to buy a cake or donut, they were more than welcome to, it was the service request of providing for the wedding they didn't agree with. 

 

what does the concept of a free market have to do with anti-discrimination laws? there's no legal linkage there whatsoever.

 

You don't have the freedom to practice anything you want to just because you call it "religion", thats ridiculous.

 

Religious groups here and down south are trying to pervert anti-discrimination laws in their favour by claiming their rights are being violated by being "forced" to do something "against their religion".  News flash - you never, ever, had that right. 

 

No you do not have the right to practice all aspects of a religion you happen to like. We prevent that all the time in our legal system. You can't withhold proper child care. You can't marry multiple people. You can't discriminate because you don't like someone. 

 

If you really hate the idea of providing service to someone or a specific group that much, then don't open a business under our corporate laws or legal system. You're free to do that. 

[189lb enforcers?]

14 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

just curious... did you happen to zoom in on the ID cards in the picture? see anything interesting? 

 

 

No, I'm not interested in what they are holding, only what they present to the rest of us. 

Were they holding ID cards? It doesn't matter, contextually, the covering speaks for itself and the culture it comes from, specifically, its religion. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

No, I'm not interested in what they are holding, only what they present to the rest of us. 

Were they holding ID cards? It doesn't matter, contextually, the covering speaks for itself and the culture it comes from, specifically, its religion. 

the point there was they were holding ID cards with their faces uncovered. The funny part is how people didn't pick up on that. It shows that they have to have proper ID at certain times. On a personal level it gives me the willies, but there's a lot of religious stuff I dislike even more, but they have that right to believe it. 

[189lb enforcers?]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the point there was they were holding ID cards with their faces uncovered. The funny part is how people didn't pick up on that. It shows that they have to have proper ID at certain times. On a personal level it gives me the willies, but there's a lot of religious stuff I dislike even more, but they have that right to believe it. 

I applaud your stance on maintaining our freedoms here. Take a bow, good sir. 

 

I do, but some of us are entirely too tolerance of Intolerance; immaculately embodied by those Muslim women in the picture. 

 

There are are times to put the better of the whole ahead of bad ideas and this is one of them. We must not bow to intolerance for fear of offending the easily offended PC culture which is rife in our safe, too comfortable Canadians, who are unable to see the future freedoms here they are allowing to degrade by supporting, bad ideas, like oppressing women in the name of religion, err Men/Man. 

[Kragar]

9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the point there was they were holding ID cards with their faces uncovered. The funny part is how people didn't pick up on that. It shows that they have to have proper ID at certain times. On a personal level it gives me the willies, but there's a lot of religious stuff I dislike even more, but they have that right to believe it. 

How do we know those ID cards belonged to them?  When it comes to Quebec's law, specifically if public transit usage is indeed part of the law, how will the driver or other transit employee know that the cardholder is indeed the person who owns the pass, if she is unwilling to uncover her face?

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I applaud your stance on maintaining our freedoms here. Take a bow, good sir. 

 

I do, but some of us are entirely too tolerance of Intolerance; immaculately embodied by those Muslim women in the picture. 

 

There are are times to put the better of the whole ahead of bad ideas and this is one of them. We must not bow to intolerance for fear of offending the easily offended PC culture which is rife in our safe, too comfortable Canadians, who are unable to see the future freedoms here they are allowing to degrade by supporting, bad ideas, like oppressing women in the name of religion, err Men/Man. 

For sure, its a very odd idea to completely hide a gender from society and its obviously extreme. But I guess I don't feel like Quebec is leading the charge for women's rights here vs. some other creepy political calculation.  

 

I think what we can offer these women is a society where they know they have a choice, they could take that thing off and no one in our government or police is going to beat them for it or worse, like in other countries. Or live in a country where if it is their choice, they're free to make it and wear it. 

 

I'd much prefer to see our government put more of an effort into women's services and shelters so the women who want to leave this situation have somewhere to go, instead of banning them from the subway. I just think this is all political bs to avoid having to actually do something and it also plays into the media telling us what to think to some degree. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

How do we know those ID cards belonged to them?  When it comes to Quebec's law, specifically if public transit usage is indeed part of the law, how will the driver or other transit employee know that the cardholder is indeed the person who owns the pass, if she is unwilling to uncover her face?

why the heck would he need to in general? if there is an actual legal reason they already have to show their faces and ID to police or security, thats already in place.

 

As far as the general public there's no law stating that you get to look at someone just because you want to. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

what does the concept of a free market have to do with anti-discrimination laws? there's no legal linkage there whatsoever.

Free market doesn't care about anti-discrimination, all it cares about is demand and supply.  Remove gov't, let the free market dictate things.  If owner A doesn't

 

 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

You don't have the freedom to practice anything you want to just because you call it "religion", thats ridiculous.

Yet you are hear arguing about the bill that just passed.

 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

Religious groups here and down south are trying to pervert anti-discrimination laws in their favour by claiming their rights are being violated by being "forced" to do something "against their religion".  News flash - you never, ever, had that right. 

Wrong....

Can you force me to work sunday's?  Can you force me to wear attire deemed unacceptable to my religion?  Can you force me not to wear an article of clothing that have religious values?

 

 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

No you do not have the right to practice all aspects of a religion you happen to like. We prevent that all the time in our legal system. You can't withhold proper child care. You can't marry multiple people. You can't discriminate because you don't like someone. 

Jimmy owes a flower shop. your wife cheats on you and ends up marrying a new guy, they want you to provide the flowers for the big day.

 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

If you really hate the idea of providing service to someone or a specific group that much, then don't open a business under our corporate laws or legal system. You're free to do that. 

If you really don't want to serve someone, they are going to shop else where and your business is going to suffer because of it. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Free market doesn't care about anti-discrimination, all it cares about is demand and supply.  Remove gov't, let the free market dictate things.  If owner A doesn't

 

 

Yet you are hear arguing about the bill that just passed.

 

Wrong....

Can you force me to work sunday's?  Can you force me to wear attire deemed unacceptable to my religion?  Can you force me not to wear an article of clothing that have religious values?

 

 

Jimmy owes a flower shop. your wife cheats on you and ends up marrying a new guy, they want you to provide the flowers for the big day.

 

If you really don't want to serve someone, they are going to shop else where and your business is going to suffer because of it. 

The point you are missing is this one: you have religious freedom only within the larger context of our legal system. Its not the other way around.

 

It sounds simple enough, but people need to understand the arrow only points one way, and thats why you don't get to discriminate because you have a chosen belief.

 

So e.g., you are correct I can't force you to work on Sunday, there's no legal basis for that in the larger legal system. But I also do not have to accommodate you if my business needs a staff on Sunday and you aren't willing to take a shift. If your job requires a uniform and somehow the job can't be done or is impossible to be mitigated through some type of accommodation then its been established that you don't get to do the job. E.g., guys with beards couldn't do certain military jobs because they couldn't wear gas masks, but an enterprising Sikh dude figured out a technical work-around and now they can. For the other types of head gear, and employer can't say no to you if it doesn't effect the job performance. 

 

Jimmy just sends crappy flowers in that instance. Maybe an old shrimp bouquet. 

 

 

 

[Kragar]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

why the heck would he need to in general? if there is an actual legal reason they already have to show their faces and ID to police or security, thats already in place.

 

As far as the general public there's no law stating that you get to look at someone just because you want to. 

Transit passes have your picture on there to help prevent against fraud.  If a person refuses to show their face, how can anyone be sure the card holder is the same person?

[JM_]

Just now, Kragar said:

Transit passes have your picture on there to help prevent against fraud.  If a person refuses to show their face, how can anyone be sure the card holder is the same person?

you can't. So if there was an indication that fraud was an issue then they might have the legal basis to turn them away from service but I think you'd have to have more than the potential for fraud as a justification. We don't penalize people for crimes they haven't committed. Or if this really was a concern they could install a turnstile with a fingerprint reader or retina scan. They're actually quite cheap now. 

[JM_]

I'm getting no work done at all today. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm getting no work done at all today. 

Me neither but I got tomorrow off, so i'm just killing some time before I enjoy weekend. 

[Kragar]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

you can't. So if there was an indication that fraud was an issue then they might have the legal basis to turn them away from service but I think you'd have to have more than the potential for fraud as a justification. We don't penalize people for crimes they haven't committed. Or if this really was a concern they could install a turnstile with a fingerprint reader or retina scan. They're actually quite cheap now. 

Look, I understand that the reasoning behind all this is flawed, and province is going about this for the wrong reasons.  That said, fraud protection is exactly enough of a reason, and if the province was smart, that's how they would approach it.  Whether you are boarding a transit bus or visiting a government office, if there is a need for ID, there has to be some way to link the ID with the ID holder.

 

What about the workplace?  As do many others, I work in a place where I have a photo ID badge.  There are some places where I need to use my badge to get access.  You can bet that everyone has to have their face uncovered.  Otherwise, what is to stop someone from taking or borrowing a badge to get access to areas they don't belong in?

 

How about driver's licenses?  It's illegal to borrow someone else's license.  If the cops pull over someone for a minor infraction, and the driver's face is covered, do you think the cop will let that pass?  Not a chance.

 

Not an expert, but I suspect a retina scan won't work with burkas.  Fingerprint readers would require bare hands, which is not acceptable to some for the same reason they want their faces covered: extreme expression of modesty.

 

People are "penalized" all the time for crimes they haven't committed.  Go and legally buy a handgun sometime and tell me different.  

 

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm getting no work done at all today. 

I hear ya there.  Been slow here for some time.  Driving me a little crazy  

[JM_]

33 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Look, I understand that the reasoning behind all this is flawed, and province is going about this for the wrong reasons.  That said, fraud protection is exactly enough of a reason, and if the province was smart, that's how they would approach it.  Whether you are boarding a transit bus or visiting a government office, if there is a need for ID, there has to be some way to link the ID with the ID holder.

 

What about the workplace?  As do many others, I work in a place where I have a photo ID badge.  There are some places where I need to use my badge to get access.  You can bet that everyone has to have their face uncovered.  Otherwise, what is to stop someone from taking or borrowing a badge to get access to areas they don't belong in?

 

How about driver's licenses?  It's illegal to borrow someone else's license.  If the cops pull over someone for a minor infraction, and the driver's face is covered, do you think the cop will let that pass?  Not a chance.

 

Not an expert, but I suspect a retina scan won't work with burkas.  Fingerprint readers would require bare hands, which is not acceptable to some for the same reason they want their faces covered: extreme expression of modesty.

 

People are "penalized" all the time for crimes they haven't committed.  Go and legally buy a handgun sometime and tell me different.  

 

I hear ya there.  Been slow here for some time.  Driving me a little crazy  

I think the US and Canadian laws are pretty clear on employment issues, if it can't be reasonably accommodated then someone wouldn't have to be allowed in somewhere. Same thing with someone not willing to use a retina or fingerprint scan, clearly the system is giving several options for accommodation and if thats still not good enough then they'd be the exception to the rule. Police can remove clothing if they have justification.

 

This is just politics. It would be possible to deal with this if was really a big issue, and like I said in the meantime other more important things get to go ignored. Thats the brilliance of Trumps tweets, its a distraction technique worthy of Penn and Teller. This bill isnt Trumpian in scale but its the same thing imo. 

 

I don't know what you mean about the gun thing, up here its quite hard to get one. 

 

 

 

 

[Kragar]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I think the US and Canadian laws are pretty clear on employment issues, if it can't be reasonably accommodated then someone wouldn't have to be allowed in somewhere. Same thing with someone not willing to use a retina or fingerprint scan, clearly the system is giving several options for accommodation and if thats still not good enough then they'd be the exception to the rule. Police can remove clothing if they have justification.

 

This is just politics. It would be possible to deal with this if was really a big issue, and like I said in the meantime other more important things get to go ignored. Thats the brilliance of Trumps tweets, its a distraction technique worthy of Penn and Teller. This bill isnt Trumpian in scale but its the same thing imo. 

 

I don't know what you mean about the gun thing, up here its quite hard to get one. 

Of course it's politics, and I'm sure you would agree that the brilliance you refer to is not limited to Trump tweets.  Important things get ignored all the time.  Down here, we get to focus on kneeling and what it represents, while too many people overlook the bigger factors at play impacting black lives in America.  

 

As I said yesterday, so many pages ago, this was poorly worded by the PQ govt.  They could have accomplished the same goal without taking potshots at Muslims, but for some reason it all comes back to threats against French-Canadian culture.

 

Regarding the gun, that's exactly my point.  You have not done anything wrong (I assume ), but those obstacles exist to limit ownership.  Why can the government penalize you (deny acquisition, charge high fees, etc.) when you have done nothing wrong?  

 

There's all kinds of "punishments" for not having done wrong (damage deposits quickly come to mind).  Having to prove your identity when there is a potential for fraud is not even remotely close to being unreasonable.  Tack onto that those who believe that the facial covering is required are in such a small minority, from a religious perspective, you could argue that it is as legitimate as polygamy with Mormons.