10
votes
'White' magazine shuts down after refusing to feature same-sex weddings
A news article: 'White' magazine shuts down after refusing to feature same-sex weddings
The farewell message: Farewell
A news article: 'White' magazine shuts down after refusing to feature same-sex weddings
The farewell message: Farewell
Gotta say this was a fairly wholesome situation. No one was sent threats or harassed, no one was forced to do anything. Someone refused to do something and others found it unethical and stopped doing business with them. A perfect example of how the system should work.
It wasn't quite that wholesome. Take this passage from their farewell message:
Abusing people just for having their wedding stories featured in a magazine is wrong on two levels: it's abusing people, and it's aimed at the wrong target.
I am okay with the principle that facilitated this; People in a free market are free to make certain choices like with whom to do business with. People in a free society are free to maintain their own belief system while also being responsible for how it affects everyone else. However, in this case, creating consequences for the transgressors under the belief that good was done outcome is negative and should not be celebrated.
The owners have a belief system such that representing LGBTQI diversity violates a core ethical philosophy. A group of people thought that it would be for the common good to organize other like minded people to voice their commitment to refusing to do business with 'White' magazine. As a result the current advertisers pulled out, and why not? They have plenty of other options, switching is easy, and cutting ties can easily be claimed to be for moral reasons resulting in free good press in place of potentially bad press.
--
Specific negative points made towards the couple are as follows.
This has little meaning. Certain things violate individual morals to varying and variable extents so I don't see any real offense there. They feel able to work with LBGTQI people but not to represent them in a ceremony that to them, has sacred requirements.
This is an unacceptable expectation for a magazine. Calling for social norm of expecting an author, artist, or publisher to demonstrate their moral intent as an aspect of their craft is facist.
As background:
Same-sex marriage is legal in Australia, as of December 2017. All people may marry any person of any gender.
It is illegal under Australian federal law to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality.
If we combine these two laws, we see that refusing to represent people engaging in the legal activity of getting married, purely on the basis of their sexuality, is illegal discrimination. The magazine represents straight couples but not gay couples, even though all couples getting married are considered equal at law. This is discrimination. Therefore, there can be said to be a legal offence occurring in this case.
It is also acceptable to expect a publication not to engage in illegal activities, such as discrimination against same-sex couples.
Then in this case, it is my opinion that your laws are unjust alongside everything I said before.
It's unjust to require people to treat everyone equally and without prejudice? I don't even know how to respond to that, except with raw shock. Imagine me sitting here, with my jaw dropped in amazement at that point of view.
I feel like that's a low resolution portrayal of what I said.
I'll respond in the context you presented anyways.
Yes, I think it is unjust to use legal means to force people to violate their ethical and creative ideals in order to have content that represents each individual identity.
I think your state of shock and physical jaw dropping reflects a positive trait. You care about people and thus want everyone to be treated equally.
In my opinion your mistake is vastly undervaluing free expression and freedom of and from religion.
These laws were created in a different time. They violated some freedoms but I believe the result was a net gain for society. In our modern world the need is less than it was and we now have the opportunity to re-prioritize what we have to force people to do.
While I think the matter needs re-evaluated, I do think the idea has merit and has a place in some form.
You wrote a single sentence to make your point about these laws being unjust. You didn't exactly provide a high degree of resolution, yourself.
Freedom of religion means that you are allowed to practise your personal religious beliefs without oppression. Freedom from religion means that you are not allowed to inflict your personal religious practises on other people. In other words, you can personally disapprove of homosexual people in your place of worship but, if you're running a business, you can't withhold service from them. Businesses are not individuals and do not have religious beliefs.
No, they were created in this time. Discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity was made illegal in 2013, and same-sex marriage was legalised in 2017.
I originally wrote a few paragraphs detailing that while I'm okay with how this able to play out in principle, and by association, legally; But for this specific event itself and the reactions that followed here are not positive.
I absolutely provided an explanation on the injustice of your laws in the context of this situation. The one line was intended to clarify this for you. I have no idea why you think this was the sum of the explanation for my reasoning.
You are too focused on my semantics when I've provided plenty of substance to actually engage in a serious and productive manner.
The terms involved are somewhat ill-defined and vary by culture in connotative meaning. Please make an effort to critically evaluate what I am putting forth.
I have been engaging with you in a serious, and hopefully productive, manner.
You think it's unjust for people to be forced, against their will and their principles, to treat other people equally and without discrimination. You have even tried to equate this to fascism - which does not equal my understanding of fascism, but I decided not to get into semantics about that, and instead focus on the core of your argument.
I have tried to explain why your point of view is flawed. If you don't like or agree with my opinions, that's one thing, but it's unfair of you to accuse me of not engaging with you properly.
It would be unfair of me to not justify my complaint about your behavior.
I appreciate your engagement in general. Any criticism of not engaging me properly stems from disappointment because I see you certain topics with thoughtful approach but yet that seems to be lacking from our conversations. I'll certainly take some responsibility that but to address your specified point...
I feel that you are not recognizing the nuance of my argument by making generalizations that fail to include and address details on the specific implications of the nature of the freedom to "discriminate" to an acceptable extent and the consequences of suppressing that concept and the offenders.
Can you see how I might perceive the following quote as phrasing what I was saying in an unfair and unproductive manner?
Seeing paragraphs about specific contexts reduced to broadly offensive one liners is disappointing.
I can't argue on the level you want me to, nit-picking and critically analysing every word you use to make sure I understand it in exactly the way you want me to understand it (you misused and misspelled "fascism", for starters). I'm a lot more direct and plain-speaking than that.
So, here's some direct plain speaking from me.
I recognise the nuance of your argument, all right. You're not the first person to try to justify a special exemption for religious people to treat other people like crap. We're going through this debate here in Australia right now. And I think it's rubbish. Your (or anyone else's) religious belief does not trump my right to equal treatment. My right to freedom from religion means I have the right to not be treated like a second-class citizen by self-righteous moralistic religious folk. I won't take that treatment from anyone.
I'll stop wasting your time now.
Thank you for being direct.
The mistake is understandable but I am an atheist. It is because of this that I advocate for the religious. They should have the right to live how they to choose limited by how it affects other people. We disagree on that limit but I think that is to be expected and that there is common ground between us on the matter.
Throughout history atheists have been killed and subjugated for their beliefs. Imagine a person shunned by everyone they know to the point of life ruining consequences because of a different philosophy on god. Is this not the same injustice that this couple is facing? They didn't preach hate or seek to hault LGBTQI marriage to my knowledge.
Consequences were suffered because people wanted to act to end an expression of thought that demonstrated a conflict in ideals.
I do not intend to make that mistake even if people with similar values to me do so.
--
Working though our own mis-perceptions of each other is not a waste of time. I wish you and your countrymen luck in finding a solution.
Hate can take many forms. It's now appearing from within campaigns to force others to conform to one's set of belief. The saying "the end justify the means" thrives.
I disagree. It isn't hate to say that "I think your beliefs are incorrect and I refuse to support them by supporting you financially.".
Thinking that you should receive money from customers because you've always done what you're doing smacks of entitlement... and when a business is run that way, it is no longer addressing the needs of it's customers.