Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away a gay couple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm sorry?

---

You don't need to talk to me like I'm a 5th grader, or an idiot. ;)

snip snip snippety snip!

Enoch, you've been trying to say it should be acceptable and legal for businesses to turn away/refuse service to/discriminate against whomever they damn well please. As if that's part of American's Liberty. Because it's infringing on those business owner's rights to do as they damn well please. Anything else is unacceptable to you, especially anti-discrimination laws, since those might be twisted by an overreaching, all-powerful and omniscient government (:rolleyes:), to discriminate in another way. You'd prefer no civil rights by law, but would instead wait around for peoples' better nature (and rational thought) to take hold. Ayn Rand and all that.

I understand the principle, and the ideal. It's also malarky, pie-in-the-sky stuff, as far as human nature goes. ie, Most humans know murder is wrong, too. We don't have laws against murder to make people decide murder is wrong.....(though some would argue murder being illegal and punishable by prison time acts as a deterrent).....but to prosecute people accused of murder, and keep them away from the rest of society.

Quote:

---

Let's see some sources for this. And I'm talking about power outages causing looting, not massive natural disasters, (Ã* la Katrina).

---

Seriously? You didn't read about the looting during NYC brown-outs or black-outs? Or LA looting during the Rodney King debacle? Looting (and riots) can happen easier than you think, when police are absent or understaffed. When power goes out in grids, so do alarm systems and traffic lights. Some people take advantage of that chaos.

Just look at what happens after a college or NFL championship game.....sofas set on fire, cars damaged, small mobs looting storefronts. That "rational thought" of humans is an Ideal.

Quote:

---

There's a distinct difference between a fear of the other, the fear of the unknown, and a justified fear based on historical precedence. As you've been dealing in platitudes, I might as well too. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

---

Right. Who said anything about the government giving us everything we want? Y'know, usually libertarians say our rights are something we're born with, which need protection. They're not something the government gives us. But in a nation of laws, we do need some laws to draw lines and limits. Like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, fire or not. The answer isn't to NOT have limiting laws, but to fashion them so they work, and change them when they don't.

No amount of community boycotting or public "shaming" is going to shut down a business who refuses Muslims, if the whole damn town is fearful and racist toward Arabs. Might as well say that town's zoning officer should be allowed to refuse a business permit to a guy named Mohammed, because they don't want no Arab terrorists in town. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Enoch, you've been trying to say it should be acceptable and legal for businesses to turn away/refuse service to/discriminate against whomever they damn well please. As if that's part of American's Liberty.

---

Mostly because it is a part of Americans liberty.

Quote:

---

I understand the principle, and the ideal. It's also malarky, pie-in-the-sky stuff, as far as human nature goes. ie, Most humans know murder is wrong, too. We don't have laws against murder to make people decide murder is wrong.....(though some would argue murder being illegal and punishable by prison time acts as a deterrent).....but to prosecute people accused of murder, and keep them away from the rest of society.

---

Two points here. My belief is my rights ends where your nose begins. This is hardly pie-in-the-sky 'stuff,' this is the most rational down-to-earth 'stuff' there is.

Secondly, that you are equating someones right to choose what activities occur on their own property with taking someone else's life shows that you either are being intellectually dishonest, or you really don't understand my position.

Quote:

---

Seriously? You didn't read about the looting during NYC brown-outs or black-outs? Or LA looting during the Rodney King debacle? Looting (and riots) can happen easier than you think, when police are absent or understaffed. When power goes out in grids, so do alarm systems and traffic lights. Some people take advantage of that chaos.

---

Power went out to much of the midwest a couple weeks ago. I must have missed the rioting. What you are actually talking about is anger and pressures that rarely have to do with the lights being on, and more to do with local phenomena. In fact, your own example invalidates your claim. You are aware what the roots of the Rodney King debacle were, aren't you? Was it blackouts that caused that riot, GGT?

More contemporaneously, was it a lack of police presence that caused the rioting in Egypt?

Quote:

---

Just look at what happens after a college or NFL championship game.....sofas set on fire, cars damaged, small mobs looting storefronts. That "rational thought" of humans is an Ideal.

---

My GOD! I don't think they'll ever get Dallas clean.

Quote:

---

No amount of community boycotting or public "shaming" is going to shut down a business who refuses Muslims, if the whole damn town is fearful and racist toward Arabs. Might as well say that town's zoning officer should be allowed to refuse a business permit to a guy named Mohammed, because they don't want no Arab terrorists in town. :donkey:

---

Again, this is something you don't think happens today? More accurately, why would anyone want to live in a hostile environment, legal protection or no? Does the Civil Rights Act prevent bricks being thrown into windows? Does it force an unsympathetic sheriff to investigate thoroughly? Your worst case scenario happens every day in the United States, on one level or another. No amount of legislation will change that.

Furthermore, and for the second time, most businesses can refuse service to patrons for any reason. So even if the reason isn't stated that it's because the patron has dusky skin and a turban, business owners can say he was being threatening, loud, obnoxious, scaring other patrons, etc... Is covert racism preferable to overt racism? Is this one of those out of sight out of mind things?

Finally, won't you answer the question I've asked time and time again? Can freedom of speech be used to intimidate and alarm, persecute, abuse, and inconvenience minorities and other socially disenfranchised groups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

That's not what I've advocated. I've said time and time again that there is no easy fix to racism. I've said cultures have to change first, and legislation won't fix deep seated cultural disputes.

More accurately, within the system I advocate, economically black balling offending businesses is the recourse I find most palatable.

---

This is where we part company. You're under the impression that legislation is designed to fix racism.

That's not the intent behind the laws, from my POV. Civil rights laws were to advocate for groups that were discriminated against, which kept them from the same freedoms others enjoyed. Choosing their seat on a bus, getting service at a lunch counter, land a job or rent an apartment....things they were denied simply because of the color of their skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Mostly because it is a part of Americans liberty.

---

I think you're wrong about that. You're conflating all businesses with all anti-discrimination laws. Why?

You wanna run a women's only membership gym, fine. You want to operate a strip club for straight men, you don't have to hire male strippers. If your business requires visual quality control, you're not mandated to hire a blind person. But in all those scenarios, you're not legally justified in refusing Atheists, just for being Atheists. Not as an employer and not as a business operator.

Quote:

---

Two points here. My beliefs are my rights ends where your nose begins. This is hardly pie-in-the-sky 'stuff,' this is the most rational down-to-earth 'stuff' there is.

Secondly, that you are equating someones right to choose what activities occur on their own property with taking someone else's life shows that you either are being intellectually dishonest, or you really don't understand my position.

---

:bored: You still haven't indulged my request, to give a concrete example of how our anti-discrimination laws mean less liberty or freedom for you. Or anyone else, for that matter.

The OP scenario left many saying....guess what, there's no law against discriminating against gay people, for not being married. Never mind that the US has more states that don't recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions than do. Ignore the fact that gay's rights haven't been considered in the same vein as race, gender, age, or religion. Quirk of the law, ha ha, no gays allowed here! Really, it's not because you're gay, but because you're not married!

:bulb:

Quote:

---

Power went out to much of the midwest a couple weeks ago. I must have missed the rioting. What you are actually talking about is anger and pressures that rarely have to do with the lights being on, and more to do with local phenomena. In fact, your own example invalidates your claim. You are aware what the roots of the Rodney King debacle were, aren't you? Was it blackouts that caused that riot, GGT?

More contemporaneously, was it a lack of police presence that caused the rioting in Egypt?

My GOD! I don't think they'll ever get Dallas clean.

---

:coffee:

Quote:

---

Again, this is something you don't think happens today? More accurately, why would anyone want to live in a hostile environment, legal protection or no? Does the Civil Rights Act prevent bricks being thrown into windows? Does it force an unsympathetic sheriff to investigate thoroughly? Your worst case scenario happens every day in the United States, on one level or another. No amount of legislation will change that.

---

Again, you're convinced these laws are meant to change mindsets or behaviors. Some "social engineering" may be present in all our laws, but I see their basic intent as (1) protecting minorities' access to an open society , (2) equal protection under the law, and (3) giving the aggrieved party legal recourse.

I also think you may have underestimated how contentious and controversial the 60s and civil rights legislation actually were:

Why were Jim Crow laws instituted in the first place? Because culturally speaking, institutionalized racism was determined to be wrong. When a critical mass, (the kind that starts people pushing for legislation) of people begin to think that way, changes are a'comin, one way or the other.

Nope, there was no critical mass majority pining for equal rights under the law, and it wasn't a reflection of a huge cultural shift. There were riots, protests, cross burnings and lynchings, murders, so much social unrest the National Guard had to be called to protect black kids walking to integrated schools.

According to your theory and premise, it was all a waste of time to create those civil rights laws.....if culturally speaking, institutionalized racism had already been determined to "be wrong". They'd have simply integrated by choice, using that rational human thought ideal.


EDIT to add Eno's edit :p

Quote:

---

Furthermore, and for the second time, most businesses can refuse service to patrons for any reason. So even if the reason isn't stated that it's because the patron has dusky skin and a turban, business owners can say he was being threatening, loud, obnoxious, scaring other patrons, etc... Is covert racism preferable to overt racism? Is this one of those out of sight out of mind things?

---

That's when the patron can call police to intervene. Because there are laws against denying someone simply because they have dusky skin or a turban. If they're really not being threatening, loud, obnoxious, scaring other patrons, the law is on their side. Your option would be what.....overt racism works just fine, so sue me?

(This rhetoric makes me think of that damn Seinfeld Soup Nazi gig :p )

Quote:

---

Finally, won't you answer the question I've asked time and time again? Can freedom of speech be used to intimidate and alarm, persecute, abuse, and inconvenience minorities and other socially disenfranchised groups?

---

Yes, of course. I never said that couldn't/doesn't happen.

Now kindly give me a concrete example of how our anti-discrimination laws limit your freedom or liberty.......answer me, please. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Mostly because it is a part of Americans liberty.

---

If you live in a cave and your business is throwing rocks. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's not the intent behind the laws, from my POV. Civil rights laws were to advocate for groups that were discriminated against, which kept them from the same freedoms others enjoyed. Choosing their seat on a bus, getting service at a lunch counter, land a job or rent an apartment....things they were denied simply because of the color of their skin.

---

And I agree those are all terrible things.

Quote:

---

The OP scenario left many saying....guess what, there's no law against discriminating against gay people, for not being married. Never mind that the US has more states that don't recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions than do. Ignore the fact that gay's rights haven't been considered in the same vein as race, gender, age, or religion. Quirk of the law, ha ha, no gays allowed here! Really, it's not because you're gay, but because you're not married!

:bulb:

---

I agree! What does that have to do with what you quoted?

Quote:

---

:coffee:

---

It's so much easier to gloss over things that don't fit into your world view, isn't it?

Quote:

---

According to your theory and premise, it was all a waste of time to create those civil rights laws.....if culturally speaking, institutionalized racism had already been determined to "be wrong". They'd have simply integrated by choice, using that rational human thought ideal.

---

It's not a waste to provide equal protections under the law. It is a waste when you make that law nullify property rights.

Quote:

---

That's when the patron can call police to intervene. Because there are laws against denying someone simply because they have dusky skin or a turban. If they're really not being threatening, loud, obnoxious, scaring other patrons, the law is on their side. Your option would be what.....overt racism works just fine, so sue me?

---

To which the property owner will say he will, the police will have a he/said she/said situation, and they will escort the patron off the property at the bequest of the property owner.

Go legislation!

Quote:

---

Yes, of course. I never said that couldn't/doesn't happen.

Now kindly give me a concrete example of how our anti-discrimination laws limit your freedom or liberty.......answer me, please. :)

---

Do you choose to use racist epithets? No? Would banning their use violate your freedom or liberty to do so?

I'm sorry, but you seem to feel like I'm dodging this question, and I feel like I've answered it every time you've asked. I feel like there's some fundamental element that one, or both of us is missing. Can you rephrase it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

And I agree those are all terrible things.

I agree! What does that have to do with what you quoted?

---

I've quoted lots of things. Can you be more specific so we don't have to keep doing this quote-reply-quote-reply thing?

Quote:

---

It's so much easier to gloss over things that don't fit into your world view, isn't it?

---

My way of choosing to ignore yet another tangent or hypothetical of yours. :p

Quote:

---

It's not a waste to provide equal protections under the law. It is a waste when you make that law nullify property rights.
To which the property owner will say he will, the police will have a he/said she/said situation, and they will escort the patron off the property at the bequest of the property owner.
Go legislation!

---

<Some say using "property rights" is akin to code for "racism and discrimination". But I digress.>

In this scenario, there is now an official record (complaint) to take to court, if they choose. No more bickering like siblings about who said what first, or who crossed the imaginary line in the car.

Quote:

---

Do you choose to use racist epithets? No? Would banning their use violate your freedom or liberty to do so?

---

*sigh* You mentioned an echo chamber chamber. Can you hear me now now now?

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, but you seem to feel like I'm dodging this question, and I feel like I've answered it every time you've asked. I feel like there's some fundamental element that one, or both of us is missing. Can you rephrase it?

---

Sure, the old college try. :D

Enoch, please write out a specific example, in narrative form, describing just ONE scenario where current anti-discrimination laws would infringe on your rights, freedoms, or liberties as an American business owner / operator. It can be a real life experience or a hypothetical. Please limit it to business operations, without other comments or tangents. I really don't like this quote-reply-quote-reply circle we've gotten ourselves into.

As a business owner, I should be free to determine my clientele, what happens on the premises I own, and the services I provide. Any laws that circumvent this infringe on my rights, freedoms, and liberties. Full stop.

Is that clear enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

As a business owner, I should be free to determine my clientele, what happens on the premises I own, and the services I provide. Any laws that circumvent this infringe on my rights, freedoms, and liberties. Full stop.

Is that clear enough?

---

No. It's not specific enough. What kind of business matters. Of course, if your business is a CPA firm, you don't have to accept a new client that hasn't filed taxes in 20 years. If your business is a private cigar-smoking club, most of the smoking legislation won't apply. If you're a restauranteur, you don't have to provide curb-side parking service.

Are you having trouble creating your hypothetical business that isn't impeded by our discrimination laws, hmm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

As a business owner, I should be free to determine my clientele, what happens on the premises I own, and the services I provide. Any laws that circumvent this infringe on my rights, freedoms, and liberties. Full stop.

Is that clear enough?

---

In case you missed my last post, your business exists at the pleasure of the society it serves. Laws that restrict your rights, freedoms, and liberties are meant to protect you and your business as well as to protect everyone requiring your services. They prevent other businesses (read suppliers, lenders, police, firefighters, etc.) from discriminating against you. You can always go it alone...hence the living in a cave throwing rocks comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

No. It's not specific enough. What kind of business matters. Of course, if your business is a CPA firm, you don't have to accept a new client that hasn't filed taxes in 20 years. If your business is a private cigar-smoking club, most of the smoking legislation won't apply. If you're a restauranteur, you don't have to provide curb-side parking service.

Are you having trouble creating your hypothetical business that isn't impeded by our discrimination laws, hmm?

---

No, I'm having trouble being racist or discriminatory when I'm not. The fact that I wouldn't be hampered by our discrimination laws doesn't mean it is any less an infringement on property rights. It goes back to the example I've given time and time again. Just because I'm not willing to use racial epithets, curse loudly in public, or spread religious hatred, doesn't mean it isn't a protected right. If I wanted to do any of those horrible things I should have the freedom and ability to do so. Does the ACLU actually believe in and support NAMBLA's causes? I don't think they do, but they defend their right to hold those abhorrent views.

I fail to see how this is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

No, I'm having trouble being racist or discriminatory when I'm not. The fact that I wouldn't be hampered by our discrimination laws doesn't mean it is any less an infringement on property rights. It goes back to the example I've given time and time again. Just because I'm not willing to use racial epithets, curse loudly in public, or spread religious hatred, doesn't mean it isn't a protected right. If I wanted to do any of those horrible things I should have the freedom and ability to do so. Does the ACLU actually believe in and support NAMBLA's causes? I don't think they do, but they defend their right to hold those abhorrent views.

I fail to see how this is different.

---

You don't own property, you own the right to rent it from the local jurisdiction. If you don't follow their rules, they will take it back. Your property rights are no more than what the local jurisdiction says they are.

Enoch, let's try another approach. You flesh it out as you see fit.

You're a Pakistani Muslim who has experience running sandwich shops. You answer an advertisement in some small town, looking for a new sandwich shop. You have the experience, the money, the business plan. You exchange nice e-mails with the town's permit officer, the strip mall landlord, the realtor, everyone in between. They want you. But when you show up for the final meeting, they see you have dark skin, are an immigrant, and a Pakistani Muslim. Suddenly, you are denied the business permit, the strip mall lease, local suppliers and advertisers. Maybe surrounding businesses have "lobbied" all of the above to keep you out. Because you're a Pakistani Muslim!

Now, tell me how you're not being unfairly discriminated against. Plus, why those other people are justified in their discrimination. The strip mall owner is running a private business, don't tell him he HAS to accept a Pakistani Muslim. The realtor is private, don't tell her she HAS to accept Pakistani Muslim clientele. etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

No, I'm having trouble being racist or discriminatory when I'm not. The fact that I wouldn't be hampered by our discrimination laws doesn't mean it is any less an infringement on property rights. It goes back to the example I've given time and time again. Just because I'm not willing to use racial epithets, curse loudly in public, or spread religious hatred, doesn't mean it isn't a protected right. If I wanted to do any of those horrible things I should have the freedom and ability to do so. Does the ACLU actually believe in and support NAMBLA's causes? I don't think they do, but they defend their right to hold those abhorrent views.

I fail to see how this is different.

---

You can curse loudly and use racial epithets, stand on the public square and shout religious hatred (with a legal permit :p ) Those are protected rights of belief, and to a certain degree---free speech. But I doubt the ACLU would rush in to protect those rights, if you were doing it as a sandwich shop proprietor---denying service to those niggers, jews, harlots, fornicators, faggots, spics, wetbacks, commie pinko ruskies, or muslim terrorists---while saying so.

There's a difference between having hatred and bigotry in the heart or mind, and taking that into the public space of business and commerce.

I fail to see how you fail to see this. :confused:

Is it an infringement on property rights when the local jurisdiction says you can't grow pot there?

Great, another fucking tangent about property rights. :haha: :sour:

The way I see that is....I should be able to grow some pot weed in my private home, for my private use. As long as I'm not trying to enter the underground black market, leave me alone. If I'm doing it as a "business venture" for legal medical marijuana and I follow those applicable laws, leave me alone. If I'm doing it as a "business venture" to exploit our crazy War Against Drugs, I might have cause to be concerned about what the hell I'm doing. If I have to hire a private security force armed with automatic weapons, hiring human mules, or digging tunnels between nations.....I'm probably doing something very wrong, or at least very illegal, and it's probably not worth the effort.

Quote:

---

Enoch, let's try another approach. You flesh it out as you see fit.

You're a Pakistani Muslim who has experience running sandwich shops. You answer an advertisement in some small town, looking for a new sandwich shop. You have the experience, the money, the business plan. You exchange nice e-mails with the town's permit officer, the strip mall landlord, the realtor, everyone in between. They want you. But when you show up for the final meeting, they see you have dark skin, are an immigrant, and a Pakistani Muslim. Suddenly, you are denied the business permit, the strip mall lease, local suppliers and advertisers. Maybe surrounding businesses have "lobbied" all of the above to keep you out. Because you're a Pakistani Muslim!

Now, tell me how you're not being unfairly discriminated against. Plus, why those other people are justified in their discrimination. The strip mall owner is running a private business, don't tell him he HAS to accept a Pakistani Muslim. The realtor is private, don't tell her she HAS to accept Pakistani Muslim clientele. etc

---

It absolutely would be unfair, and it's an awful situation to find oneself in. However, as my father used to tell me, life is not fair. The law should not be written to determine what is fair in matters of private contracts, it is up to the parties involved to hash out equity.

Finally, if there were verifiable evidence that the town permit officer unfairly discriminated against this individual then he should by all means take it to the courts, and win the right to the permit. What he could do with the permit in such a hostile area, I'm not sure, but that isn't for the permit officer to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You can curse loudly and use racial epithets, stand on the public square and shout religious hatred (with a legal permit :p ) Those are protected rights of belief, and to a certain degree---free speech. But I doubt the ACLU would rush in to protect those rights, if you were doing it as a sandwich shop proprietor---denying service to those niggers, jews, harlots, fornicators, faggots, spics, wetbacks, commie pinko ruskies, or muslim terrorists---while saying so.

There's a difference between having hatred and bigotry in the heart or mind, and taking that into the public space of business and commerce.

---

There is absolutely zero difference, as the speech in question means not bigotry of the heart or mind, but public displays of bigotry and hatred.

People can sell shirts and memorabilia that say, "I hate all *insert ethnic group, minority, majority, gender, credo, etc... here*," which can be sold in a public space of business and commerce, no? Can shop owners decide whether or not to stock those items?

Why then is it such a stretch to decide who they do or don't serve?

Could I go to a brothel in Nevada and demand sex from a prostitute because she's offering a public service, and her body is in the public space of business and commerce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Could I go to a brothel in Nevada and demand sex from a prostitute because she's offering a public service, and her body is in the public space of business and commerce?

---

You could be turned away for several reasons but none of those reasons would be considered discrimination under statutory laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Great, another fucking tangent about property rights. :haha: :sour:

---

I didn't see it as a tangent since GE is using it as his main argument against telling property owners they can't discriminate in the clientele they serve. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

It absolutely would be unfair, and it's an awful situation to find oneself in. However, as my father used to tell me, life is not fair. The law should not be written to determine what is fair in matters of private contracts, it is up to the parties involved to hash out equity.

---

While your father was wise, he probably wasn't a contract attorney, let alone a civil rights attorney. Our laws are ostensibly drafted to be fair at face value for both parties, but it doesn't always turn out that way. Because our world changes very fast, and not every nuance can be anticipated. (hint: internet)

Quote:

---

Finally, if there were verifiable evidence that the town permit officer unfairly discriminated against this individual then he should by all means take it to the courts, and win the right to the permit. What he could do with the permit in such a hostile area, I'm not sure, but that isn't for the permit officer to decide.

---

Exactly, and that's why we have anti-discrimination LAWS that can be violated and/or challenged. Without a law on the books, what the hell could you (as a Pakistani Muslim who's been denied your freedom to do business in a bigoted town) actually DO? Try to gather far-away Pakistani Muslims to boycott that town, or get a permit to march around with signs saying "This town discriminates against Pakistani Muslims"? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

There is absolutely zero difference, as the speech in question means not bigotry of the heart or mind, but public displays of bigotry and hatred.

People can sell shirts and memorabilia that say, "I hate all *insert ethnic group, minority, majority, gender, credo, etc... here*," which can be sold in a public space of business and commerce, no? Can shop owners decide whether or not to stock those items?

Why then is it such a stretch to decide who they do or don't serve?

---

Methinks you're trying to conflate too many issues just to support your ideology.

Quote:

---

Could I go to a brothel in Nevada and demand sex from a prostitute because she's offering a public service, and her body is in the public space of business and commerce?

---

See, you're again engaging in tangential and extremist hypotheticals, to support your ideology. But let's break that one down:

Nevada has legal brothels and legal prostitution open to the public within limits.
That bunny ranch prostitute is not offering a public service, but a private service offered to the public within limits.
Her body is not "open to the public" as the bunny ranch is. There are limits and restrictions made in her favor and protection.
You can make requests as a patron, but your "demands" may not fall within limits.

Not liking the rules doesn't mean your property rights have been violated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I didn't see it as a tangent since GE is using it as his main argument against telling property owners they can't discriminate in the clientele they serve. :p

---

Yeah, but you brought up an illegal drug-making activity. I didn't want to parse out one legality, within another legality, and take civil liberty laws into the same space as civil rights laws. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Yeah, but you brought up an illegal drug-making activity. I didn't want to parse out one legality, within another legality, and take civil liberty laws into the same space as civil rights laws. :mad:

---

I'm just pointing out that property rights are granted through law (no distinction between categories), not something you're born with. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I'm just pointing out that property rights are granted through law (no distinction between categories), not something you're born with. :)

---

Oh, duh, now I see what you meant! The distinction between inalienable human rights, civil rights, and property rights.

I'm still not quite sure I've understood what Enoch meant.....:(

In regards to property rights and people arguing the whole "But but the government has to intervene, has to force itself onto companies, onto the people"


The video is about the 100 year history of IBM (if you can spare 30minutes, well worth watching), but if you fastforward it to 8:39 and watch it til 11:36, you'll see why it's relevant to the discussion. To sum it up, IBM introduced certain policies in regards to discrimination decades before the US government gave itself the right to force them.

Kudos to IBM. Too bad the theory that "set a good example and others will follow" didn't catch on with other corporations of that era, huh. See the Walmart gender discrimination law suit. Today, women (in general) are still being paid less than men for the same work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Exactly, and that's why we have anti-discrimination LAWS that can be violated and/or challenged. Without a law on the books, what the hell could you (as a Pakistani Muslim who's been denied your freedom to do business in a bigoted town) actually DO? Try to gather far-away Pakistani Muslims to boycott that town, or get a permit to march around with signs saying "This town discriminates against Pakistani Muslims"? :rolleyes:

---

I've said, now four times if I've counted correctly, that government services should, by law, not be able to discriminate.

I am not going to say it again.

Quote:

---

Methinks you're trying to conflate too many issues just to support your ideology.

---

Methinks you're being an artful dodger, and not answering questions you don't have answers to.

Quote:

---

See, you're again engaging in tangential and extremist hypotheticals, to support your ideology. But let's break that one down:

---

Tangential and extreme hypotheticals? Say, like a town that is comprised entirely of racists, from mayor to county recorder, to every business owner and realtor? Because I'd never want to do something like that to support my ideology! :weird:

Quote:

---

Nevada has legal brothels and legal prostitution open to the public within limits.
That bunny ranch prostitute is not offering a public service, but a private service offered to the public within limits.
Her body is not "open to the public" as the bunny ranch is. There are limits and restrictions made in her favor and protection.
You can make requests as a patron, but your "demands" may not fall within limits.

---

Bars and liquor stores are open to the public within limits as well.

A bartender is not offering a public service, but a private service offered to the public within limits.

Why shouldn't the bar tender be able to choose who he serves?

Since we established that conservatives are evil and should be discriminated against, can I take it that the people here who think the gay couple shouldn't have been discriminated against also think that it would be ok if a hotel refused to let in guests who were conservative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Since we established that conservatives are evil and should be discriminated against, can I take it that the people here who think the gay couple shouldn't have been discriminated against also think that it would be ok if a hotel refused to let in guests who were conservative?

---

I think you might be taking a joke response a bit too far.

Also, any hotel refusing service to conservatives would be insane, don't you know they all have guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I think you might be taking a joke response a bit too far.

Also, any hotel refusing service to conservatives would be insane, don't you know they all have guns?

---

I'm being serious. Let's say the hotel owners are "liberal", and the guests come in with a "Obama is a Muslim" sign or something of the sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm being serious. Let's say the hotel owners are "liberal", and the guests come in with a "Obama is a Muslim" sign or something of the sort.

---

If you want, I can argue the usual "opinions are choices, sexuality isn't", but my heart won't be in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

If you want, I can argue the usual "opinions are choices, sexuality isn't", but my heart won't be in it.

---

At the moment that they step into the hotel, the guests hardly have a choice to change their ideology. And are you seriously suggesting that people should change their (legal) ideology just so they wouldn't be discriminated again?

Or how about black people that can pass for being white? Should they just say they're white if they go to a hotel that doesn't accept blacks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

At the moment that they step into the hotel, the guests hardly have a choice to change their ideology. And are you seriously suggesting that people should change their (legal) ideology just so they wouldn't be discriminated again?

---

Sure, but anti-discrimination laws tend to be put into place to help people from discrimination they can't fight against; it costs a lot of money to turn yourself white if you're born black, and we both know how well homosexuality re-programming works, and so on. The people who chose to be assholes should face the consequences of that choice, just like poor people have to face the consequences of choosing to be poor, isn't that what conservatives believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Or how about black people that can pass for being white? Should they just say they're white if they go to a hotel that doesn't accept blacks?

---

Again, even superficially changing appearance from black to white is expensive and unless society is willing to subsidize it, it's easier to just tell hotel owners that they have to accept the pigmentationally challenged as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Sure, but anti-discrimination laws tend to be put into place to help people from discrimination they can't fight against; it costs a lot of money to turn yourself white if you're born black, and we both know how well homosexuality re-programming works, and so on. The people who chose to be assholes should face the consequences of that choice, just like poor people have to face the consequences of choosing to be poor, isn't that what conservatives believe?

---

Ah, so now you're supporting thought-crime. Wonderful.

Quote:

---

Again, even superficially changing appearance from black to white is expensive and unless society is willing to subsidize it, it's easier to just tell hotel owners that they have to accept the pigmentationally challenged as well.

---

I was referring to people with black parents who actually look white (usually as a result of a white grandparent).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Ah, so now you're supporting thought-crime. Wonderful.

---

I wasn't aware being denied lodging at a motel was a part of the judicial system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I was referring to people with black parents who actually look white (usually as a result of a white grandparent).

---

I know? But so long as there are blacks who require extensive surgery/kidney medication to appear white, they are needlessly hindered economically for things beyond their own volition or control. This is not true for conservatives; at any point in their lives they can choose to research things for themselves and realize that most of what they're being told is a lie. Of course this holds true for religion as well, and it is very problematic to de-program yourself from such a huge cultural load, but as I told you, my heart's not in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I wasn't aware being denied lodging at a motel was a part of the judicial system.

---

You're allowing for immoral acts against people purely on the basis of their thoughts, not their actions. Then again, you do seem to think that anyone who has different political or economic views than you is immoral and irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're allowing for immoral acts against people purely on the basis of their thoughts, not their actions.

---

Immoral is, as evidenced by this discussion, in the eye of the beholder. And I wouldn't think highly of a hotel refusing entry to people believing Nixon was a lizard, but I do think professors should have the right not to take PhD students who are Creationists. Assuming their field has anything to do with biological science. That's discrimination based purely on the thoughts of the poor student, but you can't do serious science and be a creationist. *shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Then again, you do seem to think that anyone who has different political or economic views than you is immoral and irrational.

---

I suppose Dread will tell me these sentiments in about two months time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Immoral is, as evidenced by this discussion, in the eye of the beholder. And I wouldn't think highly of a hotel refusing entry to people believing Nixon was a lizard, but I do think professors should have the right not to take PhD students who are Creationists. Assuming their field has anything to do with biological science. That's discrimination based purely on the thoughts of the poor student, but you can't do serious science and be a creationist. *shrug*

---

Again, discrimination for thoughts, and not actual qualifications. You're also falsely assuming that just because someone has a few "stupid" thoughts, it must mean they're stupid in general. You'd be surprised how well people can divorce their personal views from their research. Almost everyone in my field is opposed to war, yet that doesn't preclude them from doing good research on the topic.

Quote:

---

I suppose Dread will tell me these sentiments in about two months time?

---

You honestly don't agree? Coincidentally, I'm fairly sure you believe Dread is immoral and irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Again, discrimination for thoughts, and not actual qualifications. You're also falsely assuming that just because someone has a few "stupid" thoughts, it must mean they're stupid in general. You'd be surprised how well people can divorce their personal views from their research. Almost everyone in my field is opposed to war, yet that doesn't preclude them from doing good research on the topic.

---

Which explains why you insist on discussing things with me :)

How do you propose to separate actual qualifications from "just" thoughts? Can an atheist be a good scholar of religious thought? Can a vegan be a good meat chef?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You honestly don't agree? Coincidentally, I'm fairly sure you believe Dread is immoral and irrational.

---

I'm not quite so obsessed with moral and immoral as you seem to be; Dread's more incomprehensible than immoral or irrational. I can't grasp his thought processes to a sufficient degree so as to determine whether he's irrational. What I meant was, his personal insults towards me tend to follow your thoughts, which was meant as a hint that personal insults aren't very productive to the conversation. I'm a complete hypocrite saying that, but what else is new?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Which explains why you insist on discussing things with me :)

How do you propose to separate actual qualifications from "just" thoughts? Can an atheist be a good scholar of religious thought? Can a vegan be a good meat chef?

---

I'm hoping that you'll come to your senses one day.

The theology college in the University of Chicago is one of the best in the US, and has numerous atheists (in fact, many top "Just War" scholars, which is a field originally created by the Catholic Church, are atheists). I would imagine the same would apply to vegans, as long as they were willing to work with meat.

Quote:

---

I'm not quite so obsessed with moral and immoral as you seem to be; Dread's more incomprehensible than immoral or irrational. I can't grasp his thought processes to a sufficient degree so as to determine whether he's irrational. What I meant was, his personal insults towards me tend to follow your thoughts, which was meant as a hint that personal insults aren't very productive to the conversation. I'm a complete hypocrite saying that, but what else is new?

---

I fail to see how that was a personal insult. You do look down on people who disagree with you politically/economically. I look at McCain and Obama, and only see that they have different constituencies and different methods of coming to power. You look at McCain and Obama and see one as a good, rational person and the other as an evil moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm hoping that you'll come to your senses one day.

The theology college in the University of Chicago is one of the best in the US, and has numerous atheists (in fact, many top "Just War" scholars, which is a field originally created by the Catholic Church, are atheists). I would imagine the same would apply to vegans, as long as they were willing to work with meat.

---

You didn't answer the question!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I fail to see how that was a personal insult. You do look down on people who disagree with you politically/economically. I look at McCain and Obama, and only see that they have different constituencies and different methods of coming to power. You look at McCain and Obama and see one as a good, rational person and the other as an evil moron.

---

McCain isn't a moron. His behaviour vis a vis faggots in the military does make him somewhat immoral (or rather, amoral) in my eyes, but I don't know much about McCain's other activities so I don't know how immoral he is compared to the average Congressman. (I would suspect most of them are immoral, though). I also don't have unreserved love for Obama, he has failed on several occasions and comes off as a lackluster, timid president. Neither of which are qualities that'd paint him as "good" (inasmuch as I believe in the concept) or rational.