Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ross Says it All
Two things..
1) What if they had said they were Christians but would cater a gay wedding, would they then have been attack for being Christians in name only?
2) I doubt that the Yelp or Facebook reviews had anything to do with then closing whether it is temporary or not. Online review are not trustworthy to being with. They are almost always some trying to sabotage or a troll. Almost always reviews are 1 star or 5 star.
The reason they shut down was because their phone line was swamped and they couldn’t tell real orders from fake ones. (Is there a law against that?)
Def. 7 is the more relevant one in this instance:
According to the PJ Media article, she was asked how she “feels” about about RFRA, on camera. She responded with her opinion, on camera. She was not coerced into doing so.
While I think that sites like Yelp are the most sensible way to sort out the religious freedom issue, they do empower the Rainbow Fascisti to shut s business owner down for the bad taste of not sharing their world view.
With everything going on in the last few days, with the policy of where she worked, why was she so stupid as to forget this:
Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues,and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.
Really, I am amazed at how many people who profess to be Christians think themselves safe.
In Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes Martin Luther:
Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. At the end all his disciples deserted him. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is his commission, his work. ‘The kingdom is to be in the midst of your enemies. And he who will not suffer this does not want to be of the Kingdom of Christ; he wants to be among friends, to sit among roses and lilies, not with the bad people but the devout people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing who would ever have been spared’.
Such naivete can be understood, but brings its own penalty.
I do hope I have not been too roundabout and obscure in expressing my views on this matter.
Fake orders would almost certainly qualify as fraud.
Swamping a phone line would be akin to a Denial-of-Service Attack, the legality of which is currently being decided by a case in California.
That’s not why the business is being attacked. They are being attacked because the “news story” was reported in this way:
How can you not see the difference? Is it willful ignorance or do you agree with the mob and their actions?
If the media outlet reported a falsehood, then the media outlet is guilty of libel/slander.
If individuals merely express an opinion based on false information that they received due to that slander, that does not make those individuals members of a mob.
If a media outlet falsely reported that a business engages in activity that conservatives disagree with, and those conservatives merely wrote online that they disapprove of that business as a result, the media outlet that reported the falsehood would be guilty of slander but the conservatives would not qualify as a “mob”.
There should be. That is harresment. The Government won’t let me defend myself, it should step in to protect me
Sigh – this is all pure tribalism and it is extremely disheartening.
There is another team on the field. Right now, his forces are advancing around the world.
News reports that use that phrasing are irresponsible and unethical. I’m not sure what the right remedy is, but there should be consequences.
That said, there are a lot of people who do understand the differences and object anyway. There are ethical and unethical ways to express that objection — I’d argue that posting angry comments and giving nasty reviews on a restaurant’s Yelp page simply because you don’t like their politics is sketchy, especially if you’d never go there — but it’s an order of magnitude less than misrepresenting their views and multiple orders of magnitude less than threatening actual violence.
The Internet also empowers conservatives to attempt the same thing, as many are now attempting by promoting a boycott of Apple products.
A tactic does not become illigitimate simply because it is used successfully against someone you happen to support.
Happily, it seems the pizzeria has a few supporters.
Does that mean that conservatives should not post comments online about their displeasure with Apple computers, especially if they do not own any Apple products?
Find me one advocating fire bombing Apple headquarters, calling for the death of the CEO, or comparing them to Nazis and we’ll have a real comparison.
I think it’s a little different if you’re talking about a national brand with market share the size of Apple’s.
Also, you can’t quite Yelp-bomb the iPad in the same way you can a local pizzeria.
Don’t get me wrong: Yelp-bombing is and should be perfectly legal, though — if I were Yelp — I’d consider taking down the reviews that were solely about the store’s politics, especially if they were based on falsehood (won’t serve gays vs. won’t serve gay weddings, etc.).
“If I were Yelp” being the operative term here. I don’t contribute to or make much use of Yelp because it has had a tendency to be irresponsiblt about what reviews show up there.
Even more offensive was Angie’s List’s response to the RFRA law. If anyone should be aware of the power of the consumer to bring down a business that as given offense without making a federal case of it, Angie’s List should.
a) I did not ask if conservatives should refrain from committing the crime of uttering threats, so that example is a clear straw man.
b) I can provide you with many examples online where Tim Cook and/or Apple Inc has been compared to nazis, though not necessarily in direct reference to the LGBT issue.
c) May I infer from your question that as long as threats of violence and references to National Socialism are excluded, all other forms of online comment are legitimate?
Isn’t there a scene at the end of The Young Lions that touches upon how far out the circle goes when you start defining who is a Nazi?
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Many conservatives often complain that governments punish successful companies for behaviour which they deem acceptable when engaged in by less successful companies. I do not see why the same standard should suddenly apply when it comes to the * opinions expressed online by individual consumers.
(*non-violent and unrelated to National Socialism)
You can try, on many consumer review sites. Like I wrote before, a tactic is not legitimate only as long as it’s unsuccessful, and a tactic does not suddenly become illegitimate simply because it’s successful.
After all, it wouldn’t be legitimate for one to utter threats against Apple merely because one knew it wouldn’t have the same effect as uttering threats against a pizzeria.
I do also make an exception for falsehoods, but not for politics. There are many, many instances (like, oh, say, Apple for example, or Mozilla) where conservatives dislike a company due to its politics. Should consumer review sites censor all reviews that mention factually-correct political factors?
But that’s whole whole point of sites like Yelp and Angie’s List! Encouraging boycotts of businesses based on unsubstantiated claims is a key part of their business model.
I’m generally not in favor of any behavior or rhetoric, online or otherwise, that tends to whip large groups of uninformed, passionate people (aka: mob) into such a frenzy where threats of violence and the inevitable comparison to National Socialism will arise. I’m not in favor of shouting down opposing viewpoints or silencing them by violence or threats of violence.
I don’t think we’re fully disagreeing.
My main point is that Yelp-bombing a local pizza place is vastly more damaging to that company than writing nasty things about Apple or Tim Cook. Now, one might say that that’s not one’s problem, but I think a bit of proportionality is best in this. Pushing a 200lb man and toddler have different effects, if the same cause.
Moreover, I think it’s morally fraught to use a quality-based ratings service to make political arguments. If I don’t like a company’s politics, there’s plenty you can do, without demeaning their product or service, which is the practical effect of Yelp-bombing them.
Wait…. seriously?
Not at all, it is merely a business challenge. A savvy entrepreneur can even turn such to their advantage:
Why this tiny Italian restaurant gives a discount for bad Yelp reviews
I always thought (and I have used both Yelp and Angie’s List to do research on local veterinary practices to replace the one we use for our cat that died of Kidney Failure at age 8 in January) that they were to learn what the web sites for businesses leave out.
That a pizzeria not only won’t cater a Gay wedding but stated as much openly is information that should be out there. It is as worth knowing as how good the pizza is. It tells me that I am not dealing with the sharpest tools in the tool box when I go to the pizzeria. What else have they been stupid about? Health Codes?
So, does that mean you agree with those who claimed Sarah Palin was at least partially responsible for violence when she used images of gunsights in her literature?
Pushing a person is assault, regardless of their size. Making (non-violent and non-fraudulent) online comments about a business is speech, regardless of the business’ size.
Quality is entirely subjective. It is entirely legitimate for reasonable people to disagree on what factors contribute to a business’ “quality”.
The fact that a business refuses to provide a service in a particular (hypothetical and highly unlikely) circumstance may be irrelevant to you or me, but consumers make purchasing decisions based on all sorts of factors that I think are irrelevant. The fact that I disagree with their opinions does not make their opinions illegitimate.