:D I should probably avoid commenting, so that I can prevent the whole "if you hate Amerika so much, get the fuck out bitch" routine from our very special someones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
AKA Amerika is a bigger armpit than South Afrika.
:D I should probably avoid commenting, so that I can prevent the whole "if you hate Amerika so much, get the fuck out bitch" routine from our very special someones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
AKA Amerika is a bigger armpit than South Afrika.
15-20% consistently voted for an anti-apartheid party; I also didn't say that the change came as a result of the actions of whites. My point was that the system broke down because of internal pressure, from all sectors of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Would that pressure have existed without Nazi Germany's unpleasant example, and the resulting legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't think the Nazi example had anything to do with it. There weren't too many critics of apartheid immediately after WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Are you then arguing that so long as the markets become freer in Israel, Burma and other such locations, the institutional racism will also diminish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think the discrimination in those places is based on politics/security interests, not economics. No economic changes are going to fix that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Enoch has advocated the idea that so long as people could choose where to spend their money, the racism would cease. That's all it takes. You're in disagreement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
More accurately, within the system I advocate, economically black balling offending businesses is the recourse I find most palatable.
And it is my (perhaps misguided) notion that cultures change easier with pressure from above; jim crow, making calling people faggots a hate crime, so forth. The kids who find Jim Crow incomprehensible today were raised by a public school system which told them it was wrong. Should it be up to luck which children get taught that racism is wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
People are called faggots all the time. Source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
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.
I ask again, do you think racists in the Deep South care about violating The Civil Rights act? Do you think that legislation has changed their minds? Did it change what they taught their children?
Why do you think racism would be taught in schools based off of what I've proposed? That's exactly the opposite of what I've said, no?
You don't need to talk to me like I'm a 5th grader, or an idiot. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
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.
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.Quote:
Let's see some sources for this. And I'm talking about power outages causing looting, not massive natural disasters, (Ã* la Katrina).
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.
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.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."
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:
Mostly because it is a part of Americans liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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:
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?
This is where we part company. You're under the impression that legislation is designed to fix racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
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.
I think you're wrong about that. You're conflating all businesses with all anti-discrimination laws. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
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.
: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.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.
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:
:coffee: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.
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.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.
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
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?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?
(This rhetoric makes me think of that damn Seinfeld Soup Nazi gig :p )
Yes, of course. I never said that couldn't/doesn't happen.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?
Now kindly give me a concrete example of how our anti-discrimination laws limit your freedom or liberty.......answer me, please. :)
If you live in a cave and your business is throwing rocks. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
And I agree those are all terrible things.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I agree! What does that have to do with what you quoted?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:
It's so much easier to gloss over things that don't fit into your world view, isn't it?Quote:
:coffee:
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:
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.
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.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?
Go legislation!
Do you choose to use racist epithets? No? Would banning their use violate your freedom or liberty to do so?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. :)
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?
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:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
My way of choosing to ignore yet another tangent or hypothetical of yours. :pQuote:
It's so much easier to gloss over things that don't fit into your world view, isn't it?
<Some say using "property rights" is akin to code for "racism and discrimination". But I digress.>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!
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.
*sigh* You mentioned an echo chamber chamber. Can you hear me now now now?Quote:
Do you choose to use racist epithets? No? Would banning their use violate your freedom or liberty to do so?
Sure, the old college try. :DQuote:
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?
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Are you having trouble creating your hypothetical business that isn't impeded by our discrimination laws, hmm?
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
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.
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.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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
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?
You could be turned away for several reasons but none of those reasons would be considered discrimination under statutory laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
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. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
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:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
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:
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.
Methinks you're trying to conflate too many issues just to support your ideology.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?
See, you're again engaging in tangential and extremist hypotheticals, to support your ideology. But let's break that one down: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?
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.