[jasonkramer]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You seem to be forgetting that discrimination is perfectly legal and moral. It is ILLEGAL discrimination that is illegal..

actually no. i take it you dident see my second post.

here is what i wrote "dont recall saying it was illegal. but anyone who says its not discriminatory is an idiot. "

also i cant see how being discrimination is moral correct. fair i could agree with depending on the situation. but moral? no. affirmative action in the US can be fair since you are providing an extra advantage to certain groups of people. it is how ever not the least bit morally acceptable since you are purposely limiting the available of resources to individuals that done fit the specific criteria. not nice at all.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by jasonkramer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	actually no. i take it you dident see my second post.

I'll take reading/writing advice from you when you learn how to spell and capitalize correctly. You know, attention to detail and dotting "i"'s and all that.

	Originally Posted by jasonkramer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	here is what i wrote "dont recall saying it was illegal. but anyone who says its not discriminatory is an idiot. "

That's irrelevant. The point is not that it isn't discriminatory, the point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating.

	Originally Posted by jasonkramer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	also i cant see how being discrimination is moral correct...you are purposely limiting the available of resources to individuals that done fit the specific criteria. not nice at all.

The thing about people is that they don't always make a whole lot of sense. In this case it's not even really a matter of individual merits. It's a matter of who a small group of people feel comfortable inviting to their event. This wool festival thing has about the same social impact as a girls night out. It's just a small group, doing a small thing, and they figure a certain class of people being present at that thing will make them uncomfortable.

I mean, no one can say for sure, but doesn't it seem kind of likely that this wool festival thing is largely a dating event? Lesbians are women who are attracted to other women, and this is an even for people who all like to knit. Making it clear that only lesbians, and to a larger extent women who are comfortable around lesbians, are welcome means that if a lesbian shows up she is likely to be surrounded by potential romantic partners who are already into the same hobby. Letting men into the event would have a chilling effect on a population that is already pretty chilled to begin with.

The reason this isn't morally wrong is that it's a social event being hosted by a private party. They don't have any responsibility to include anyone who would make them uncomfortable. At least, it doesn't make any less sense than a nightclub discriminating against people wearing casual clothes.

Discrimination only means making a distinction. Sometimes there's noting wrong with making a distinction. You can't turn every single decision everyone makes about everything into a struggle for equality.

[jasonkramer]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'll take reading/writing advice from you when you learn how to spell and capitalize correctly. You know, attention to detail and dotting "i"'s and all that. That's irrelevant. The point is not that it isn't discriminatory, the point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating. The thing about people is that they don't always make a whole lot of sense. In this case it's not even really a matter of individual merits. It's a matter of who a small group of people feel comfortable inviting to their event. This wool festival thing has about the same social impact as a girls night out. It's just a small group, doing a small thing, and they figure a certain class of people being present at that thing will make them uncomfortable. I mean, no one can say for sure, but doesn't it seem kind of likely that this wool festival thing is largely a dating event? Lesbians are women who are attracted to other women, and this is an even for people who all like to knit. Making it clear that only lesbians, and to a larger extent women who are comfortable around lesbians, are welcome means that if a lesbian shows up she is likely to be surrounded by potential romantic partners who are already into the same hobby. Letting men into the event would have a chilling effect on a population that is already pretty chilled to begin with. The reason this isn't morally wrong is that it's a social event being hosted by a private party. They don't have any responsibility to include anyone who would make them uncomfortable. At least, it doesn't make any less sense than a nightclub discriminating against people wearing casual clothes. Discrimination only means making a distinction. Sometimes there's noting wrong with making a distinction. You can't turn every single decision everyone makes about everything into a struggle for equality.

i really dont see what they hell you are arguing about. all i have said is that it is discrimination. i have not made a case of where it is good or bad. i am just make it clear that it is discrimination.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by jasonkramer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	i have not made a case of where it is good or bad.

Really? So I should interpret this...

	Originally Posted by jasonkramer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	i cant see how being discrimination is moral correct. fair i could agree with depending on the situation. but moral? no.

...as just another grammar error? You didn't mean that the knitting lesbians were morally incorrect?

[SShack]

I'm just fascinated with the kind of "political statements" one might make within the medium of knitting. Enough so as to have a competition for it.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

Why do people always draw the tower with oil spraying out of the top but never draw the pipe carrying the oil to the top?

The funniest part of the invasion was when they called it Operation Iraqi Freedom but kept using the word "liberated" to describe it. If They'd called it Operation Iraqi Liberation the acronym would have been OIL.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by jasonkramer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

also i cant see how being discrimination is moral correct. fair i could agree with depending on the situation. but moral? no. affirmative action in the US can be fair since you are providing an extra advantage to certain groups of people. it is how ever not the least bit morally acceptable since you are purposely limiting the available of resources to individuals that done fit the specific criteria. not nice at all.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Are we here to judge whether or not other people are suitably good people? I really don't care. I could call Knights of Columbus "discriminatory" because it's all Catholic. But the truth is, I couldn't care less if they want to hang out with each other. Same with the Klan, frankly. Please, stay away from the rest of us.

So it's legal. It becomes illegal when it's public and institutionalized. That includes incoporated businesses that are open to the public, because, unsurprisingly, they're deemed to be, well, public, and thus subject to regulation. Private events sponsored by the unincorporated, even ones that make money, are not subject to the same regulations.

As for "moral" or "immoral": I think it's immoral to not let groups of people have access to the same public facilities as other groups, or for our laws to treat whole categories of people unequally, as reflected in law and in the US, under the 14th amendment. I do not care if people choose to do that on a personal level. See above. Clear enough?

[newtome]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So it's legal. It becomes illegal when it's public and institutionalized. That includes incoporated businesses that are open to the public, because, unsurprisingly, they're deemed to be, well, public, and thus subject to regulation. Private events sponsored by the unincorporated, even ones that make money, are not subject to the same regulations. As for "moral" or "immoral": I think it's immoral to not let groups of people have access to the same public facilities as other groups, or for our laws to treat whole categories of people unequally, as reflected in law and in the US, under the 14th amendment. I do not care if people choose to do that on a personal level. See above. Clear enough?

So the fact that the organiser is a promoter and not a community club or organisation, the fact that the promoter will have to pay tax on the earnings from the event, the fact that the event required a permit from some form of government authority to use the venue, the fact that the public is invited provided they are only female, non of that seems like discrimination?

How about I promote a car show, just GM muscle cars, and I want a specific demographic to show up and I don't want others there to detract from the show as I get a commission from any car sold due to the show. So I advertise the show and I say "guys only" and there is a competition open only to recently married guys to say in 20 words or less why they want a muscle car and the best entry wins a brand new muscle car. All entrants must produce some proof that they were married in the past 5 years. And in case the "guys only" wasn't clear enough, no women.

I take it that this is fine by you and doesn't discriminate against women or single guys?

[Vagrant]

How about I promote a car show, just GM muscle cars, and I want a specific demographic to show up and I don't want others there to detract from the show as I get a commission from any car sold due to the show. So I advertise the show and I say "guys only" and there is a competition open only to recently married guys to say in 20 words or less why they want a muscle car and the best entry wins a brand new muscle car. All entrants must produce some proof that they were married in the past 5 years. And in case the "guys only" wasn't clear enough, no women. I take it that this is fine by you and doesn't discriminate against women or single guys?

Your analogy breaks down at even the simplest level of scrutiny. This is an arts and crafts fair FOR lesbians (and other women) BY lesbians. Car shows have almost nothing to do with sex/gender or marriage, and are intended to highlight the cars, not the people. The arts and crafts fair is intended to highlight the artists and their status as lesbians.

It's like saying a gun show should be straight people only. There is no logical connection why, and no purpose behind it.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your analogy breaks down at even the simplest level of scrutiny. This is an arts and crafts fair FOR lesbians (and other women) BY lesbians. Car shows have almost nothing to do with sex/gender or marriage, and are intended to highlight the cars, not the people. The arts and crafts fair is intended to highlight the artists and their status as lesbians. It's like saying a gun show should be straight people only. There is no logical connection why, and no purpose behind it.

Where do you get the "for Lesbians, by Lesbians" from? Best I can see from all the information is that the show is run by a woman (the promoter) for a demographic (Lesbians) and is open to only a subset of the public.

When does "arts and crafts" as opposed to "muscle cars" matter"? Since when do "arts and crafts" have something to do with gender anymore than "muscle cars"?

My car show is intended to highlight that young married men love and own muscle car's. Hopefully it will encourage more young married men to buy muscle cars no matter how impracticle they may be for married life.

[Vagrant]

	Where do you get the "for Lesbians, by Lesbians" from?

"Yandoit Lesbian Knitting and Wool Show"
"Lesbian-only competition."
"Open section for Local (Non-Lesbian) Women and Girls"
"This is a Women only event"

Gee, I wonder where I got that.

It's clear this fair is about WOMEN and the arts and crafts bit gives something to do whilst hanging out with other women.

	My car show is intended to highlight that young married men love and own muscle car's. Hopefully it will encourage more young married men to buy muscle cars no matter how impracticle they may be for married life.

What?

[larkin]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How about I promote a car show, just GM muscle cars, and I want a specific demographic to show up and I don't want others there to detract from the show as I get a commission from any car sold due to the show. So I advertise the show and I say "guys only" and there is a competition open only to recently married guys to say in 20 words or less why they want a muscle car and the best entry wins a brand new muscle car. All entrants must produce some proof that they were married in the past 5 years. And in case the "guys only" wasn't clear enough, no women. [...] I take it that this is fine by you and doesn't discriminate against women or single guys?

It does "discriminate," and it's fine by me. Although there are regulations for private events involved and you'd have to abide by those - for example, if it's a GM-sponsored event, that's a problem. GM is a publicly incorporated business. Public business, public regulations. Private event, private event regulations. Can you honestly tell me you can't see the difference between the Klan opening a bar that serves whites only and the Klan holding a bake sale? I might not approve of the latter, but it's their right to do so.

So a local private club wants to have a sports night for only guys? I wouldn't say I "approve" - as if my "approval" matters anyway - but I understand it, and it's legal. They're free to do so. Similarly, I understand women-only fitness clubs, and they are similarly legal.

One of the core differentiating factors in this thread - and the Chick Fil-A thread as well - is the difference between public, institutional, or legalized discrimination and private beliefs and private "discrimination." Think whatever you want. Do something illegal? That's a problem. Avail yourself of public resources, including public incorporation, to promote discrimination? Also a problem.

Underlying the failure to understand this difference is the failure to recognize that discrimination against some groups of people over history has very definitely been public, institutional, and legalized. In many ways it still is. The reason "discrimination" is considered morally wrong is because it promotes prejudicial treatment - i.e., treatment that actually causes harm. Since the Klan represents a movement that has very definitely caused harm, I find them morally objectionable. (But their legal actions they are still legal - it's the action, not the group of people undertaking it, that's relevant.) I don't consider a group of guys getting together to look at muscle cars prejudicial, but I suppose it could be. That's a moral distinction left to each person. But they're certainly not equivalent. All discrimination is not equivalent.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It does "discriminate," and it's fine by me. Although there are regulations for private events involved and you'd have to abide by those - for example, if it's a GM-sponsored event, that's a problem. GM is a publicly incorporated business. Public business, public regulations. Private event, private event regulations. Can you honestly tell me you can't see the difference between the Klan opening a bar that serves whites only and the Klan holding a bake sale? I might not approve of the latter, but it's their right to do so. So a local private club wants to have a sports night for only guys? I wouldn't say I "approve" - as if my "approval" matters anyway - but I understand it, and it's legal. They're free to do so. Similarly, I understand women-only fitness clubs, and they are similarly legal. One of the core differentiating factors in this thread - and the Chick Fil-A thread as well - is the difference between public, institutional, or legalized discrimination and private beliefs and private "discrimination." Think whatever you want. Do something illegal? That's a problem. Avail yourself of public resources, including public incorporation, to promote discrimination? Also a problem. Underlying the failure to understand this difference is the failure to recognize that discrimination against some groups of people over history has very definitely been public, institutional, and legalized. In many ways it still is. The reason "discrimination" is considered morally wrong is because it promotes prejudicial treatment - i.e., treatment that actually causes harm. Since the Klan represents a movement that has very definitely caused harm, I find them morally objectionable. (But their legal actions they are still legal - it's the action, not the group of people undertaking it, that's relevant.) I don't consider a group of guys getting together to look at muscle cars prejudicial, but I suppose it could be. That's a moral distinction left to each person. But they're certainly not equivalent. All discrimination is not equivalent.

I agree with all you say. My difficulty is that I still don't see where the craft show is a private event, there is no club attached to the flyer, just an individual promoter as I am for the car show I want to run. GM will be no more a sponsor than the publicly listed wool company that has provided some free wool for the event.

The matter of discrimination seems to be on whether this is a craft club/group or a craft fair being run for profit by a promoter who is charging admission and for stalls, which to me it is.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The matter of discrimination seems to be on whether this is a craft club/group or a craft fair being run for profit by a promoter who is charging admission and for stalls, which to me it is.

It is discrimination. That is not an argument. Any time you make a distinction you are discriminating.

The question is whether or not the discrimination is legal and/or moral.

It is obviously legal. I cited an Australian website describing how their equal opportunity law(s) don't apply to an event as small as a party one person hosts for a few hours.

Whether or not it is moral is up for debate. Personally, I don't think a group as tiny as "lesbians who like to knit and live within driving distance of one town" is hurting the status of men in society. Get over it. Living in a free society means knowing that other people are doing things that you find mildly distasteful.

[newtome]

That's my point, why do so many people see discrimination as only existing if the law says it's discrimination?

Yet for many minorities they claim discrimination in both the law and society.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's my point, why do so many people see discrimination as only existing if the law says it's discrimination?

Because I can tell you if it's legal, but moral lines are subjective and far more difficult.

I don't find all discrimination immoral or equivalent, as above. I base that moral distinction on whether the behavior/ event/ action promotes prejudicial treatment in society. Behavior that reinforces the existing weight of traditional or historically prejudicial treatment in the society is obviously more likely to do so.

That's certainly not to excuse explicitly prejudicial actions undertaken by minorities or those with traditionally less power in society. But keep in mind that by default, society naturally reaffirms "same." Those that fall into the category of "other" often have choose to exclusively associate in order to reaffirm their very existence. Whereas the "same" choosing to associate exclusively - when again, the entirety of society naturally reaffirms them - is simply more likely to be an act not of definition, but of opposition. And taken with the weight of traditional/historical experience, explicitly prejudicial. (Simone de Beauvoir really has the definitive philosophical treatment, here.)

Again, all of those are personal and moral distinctions, though. They're inherently subjective and without necessarily clear answers. The law isn't.