Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away a gay couple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I assume this was an attempted metaphor, so...

---

Yeah, the point is as I said, "Your property rights are no more than what the local jurisdiction says they are." As for your nitpick, the metaphor works well enough. If you don't pay your property tax ("rent") you will be evicted. And it seems you skipped happily past eminent domain. If the local jurisdiction deems the public needs the property they can force you to sell back to them the right to "rent" the property from them and even resell that right to another private entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

It would help the level of conversation in oh over half the threads on the first page

---

I think you (and several others) not demonizing people with different views would improve all threads. Everyone attacks Lewk for it, but no one seems to care about the other side. Just take a step back and think about how you'd feel if the half the people here became Lewk.

It's kind of hard to be sympathetic to the guys asking for faggots to be denied marriage, military service or whatever else. Never mind the rhetoric about poor people.

How much bending over backwards does one have to do not to demonize people who print this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3..._tea-party.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

How much bending over backwards does one have to do not to demonize people who print this

---

Just because there are idiots and extremists from every ideology is not an excuse to consider every member of that ideology an idiot and extremist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Just because there are idiots and extremists from every ideology is not an excuse to consider every member of that ideology an idiot and extremist.

---

We'll see next year just how much clout these idiots have, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

How much bending over backwards does one have to do not to demonize people who print this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3..._tea-party.jpg

---

My God, it's horrible... Riefenstahlesque in it's deception and duplicity... The tacit bigotry and hatred for black conservatives and early civil rights leaders.

How do these people sleep at night?

The picture has more in common with Communist propaganda but I'm glad you're never shy of playing the Nazi card. I also take it this is a paper you would purchase?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

The picture has more in common with Communist propaganda but I'm glad you're never shy of playing the Nazi card. I also take it this is a paper you would purchase?

---

If I'm not mistaken you already Godwinned the thread, no?

And of course not. I didn't even know it existed. That being said, I don't think the people making it are subhuman or have, based on that cover alone, made any statements deserving of your response.

Surprising as it may sound, there are some gray areas between finding to be someone entirely disgusting, revolting, and subhuman, and subscribing to their newsletter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

If I'm not mistaken you already Godwinned the thread, no?

And of course not. I didn't even know it existed. That being said, I don't think the people making it are subhuman or have, based on that cover alone, made any statements deserving of your response.

Surprising as it may sound, there are some gray areas between finding to be someone entirely disgusting, revolting, and subhuman, and subscribing to their newsletter.

---

My response was that they are silly people advocating views that are easy to "demonize" in that they are already awful without reading their words defend those things which hurt others. They're not subhuman, they're just very much for things that cause human misery. *shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Yeah, the point is as I said, "Your property rights are no more than what the local jurisdiction says they are."

---

Local jurisdiction being defined very broadly, I assume?

Quote:

---

And it seems you skipped happily past eminent domain. If the local jurisdiction deems the public needs the property they can force you to sell back to them the right to "rent" the property from them and even resell that right to another private entity.

---

Yes I did. Eminent domain has absolutely nothing to do with rights, with regard to property or otherwise. Eminent domain is nothing more or less than the unabashed exercise of power by one party over another vastly weaker party. If you wish to use it as an indication that people have no property rights, then the death penalty demonstrates there is no right to life, and myriad other examples will demonstrate there are no rights at all, only the capacity to coerce others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I think you (and several others) not demonizing people with different views would improve all threads.

---

Several others indeed.

http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post67485

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Several others indeed.

http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post67485

---

Ouch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Several others indeed.

http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post67485

---

An attack versus an ideology versus an attack against individuals. Not surprising to see the likes of you and Khen go on the personal offensive though. God forbid anyone who disagreed with you wasn't an idiot. You must live one heck of a life with that kind of an attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

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.

---

We've been going 'round about anti-discrimination laws. Earlier you said "authorities should set a good example", that you don't support anti-discrimination laws. Especially not for private businesses....but you're okay with anti-discrimination laws for government "services". I'm just trying to get a handle on your views here. One set of rules for gov't, another for everyone else?

Quote:

---

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

---

:confused: Uhm, if I don't have an answer, how can I answer?

Quote:

---

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:

---

That wasn't an extreme hypothetical, but an example of real-life small town stuff that happens. Actually based on what Hmong immigrants had to deal with in a northern state. They were offered jobs at a meat packing plant, but couldn't find rental housing due to attitudes that "we don't want those people in our town".

Quote:

---

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?

---

He can if they're legally underage, shoeless or shirtless (depending), are too drunk and pose a risk to self/others, or can't pay the tab.
But not because of skin color, gender, wearing a Sikh turban--Jewish yarmulke--Muslim burka--Christian crucifix, etc.
Why should he be able to turn people away based on those things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

We've been going 'round about anti-discrimination laws. Earlier you said "authorities should set a good example", that you don't support anti-discrimination laws. Especially not for private businesses....but you're okay with anti-discrimination laws for government "services". I'm just trying to get a handle on your views here. One set of rules for gov't, another for everyone else?

---

Let me be more clear then. Our government should be bound by law to provide public services to all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender, etc...

Quote:

---

That wasn't an extreme hypothetical, but an example of real-life small town stuff that happens. Actually based on what Hmong immigrants had to deal with in a northern state. They were offered jobs at a meat packing plant, but couldn't find rental housing due to attitudes that "we don't want those people in our town".

---

Which shows the status quo is working oh so well?

Also, that they were able to find jobs shows that bigotry wasn't as pervasive as in your example.

Quote:

---

He can if they're legally underage, shoeless or shirtless (depending), are too drunk and pose a risk to self/others, or can't pay the tab.
But not because of skin color, gender, wearing a Sikh turban--Jewish yarmulke--Muslim burka--Christian crucifix, etc.
Why should he be able to turn people away based on those things?

---

Simply put, he shouldn't turn people away based on those things. It's not rational, it doesn't make good business sense, and I believe it's morally wrong. That doesn't mean that businesses should be prevented from making irrational, wrongheaded decisions, or be subjected to my personal morality.

The best way to strike the balance, in my opinion, is to enforce negative rights and liberties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Let me be more clear then. Our government should be bound by law to provide public services to all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender, etc...

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Which shows the status quo is working oh so well?
Also, that they were able to find jobs shows that bigotry wasn't as pervasive as in your example.

---

They were only able to find apartments because of Equal Housing laws. That didn't change bigotry, but opened opportunity for the minority being wronged.

Quote:

---

Simply put, he shouldn't turn people away based on those things. It's not rational, it doesn't make good business sense, and I believe it's morally wrong. That doesn't mean that businesses should be prevented from making irrational, wrongheaded decisions, or be subjected to my personal morality.

The best way to strike the balance, in my opinion, is to enforce negative rights and liberties.

---

Well, how do you enforce something without a corresponding law? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

An attack versus an ideology versus an attack against individuals. Not surprising to see the likes of you and Khen go on the personal offensive though. God forbid anyone who disagreed with you wasn't an idiot. You must live one heck of a life with that kind of an attitude.

---

Ah. An attack versus an ideology? Right.

That's why you labelled us as "lefties" before.
http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post35988
http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post49367

That's only two of the numerous search results. And I particularly like the phrase "and the likes of you" in conjunction with your advice not to demonize people with different views.

I smell hipocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

They were only able to find apartments because of Equal Housing laws. That didn't change bigotry, but opened opportunity for the minority being wronged.

---

So they were able to find housing? I'm slightly confused because earlier you said they were not able to find housing because of all the racists in the town...

Quote:

---

Well, how do you enforce something without a corresponding law? :confused:

---

Why can't there be laws enforcing negative liberties/rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

An attack versus an ideology versus an attack against individuals. Not surprising to see the likes of you and Khen go on the personal offensive though. God forbid anyone who disagreed with you wasn't an idiot. You must live one heck of a life with that kind of an attitude.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Again, the fact that you're willing to act as an apologist for this kind of discrimination but get shocked at other types says quite a bit about you. You remind me of the people who support freedom of speech as long as it's the freedom to say things you agree with.

---

So uhmm, I take it thats a miniature high horse you're riding then?

http://www.ibleedink.net/images/miniature-horse.jpg

To head off a possible response before it comes, I'm not trying to say I'm better than you, or that I don't sometimes make arguments personal, what I am doing though is pointing out that its silly to act as if you're debating style is superior because you don't make personal attacks, when its obviously apparent from just looking at the forums that you do. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

So they were able to find housing? I'm slightly confused because earlier you said they were not able to find housing because of all the racists in the town...

---

:rolleyes: I left out the word "eventually" [they found housing].

Quote:

---

Why can't there be laws enforcing negative liberties/rights?

---

Yes, like Freedom from being discriminated against.....

Doesn't this quote mean anything to people these days: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?
And it's not just for the freedom of the press, but it encompasses all spheres of expression, including property and having the right to discriminate on your own property. I use to be on the whole "Free medical health care, no discrimination etc" bandwagon, but I didn't understand those concepts wholly at the time, and it wasn't until that I read into them that I realised at whose expense such programs would be. Then there was this crazy socialist girl who approached me at university once, asking me whether I was 'left or right wing' and at the time I told her that I was in the centre and she seemed offended that I didn't say left wing. Then she started talking about what her views were and what really put me off was her saying the following "It's ok for the government to tax wealthy people/companies at a higher rate because they have enough money as it is. What are they going to do with all of it anyway?" I was genuinely revolted that a person could advocate such a thing, as to give themselves the right to say what another person can and cannot do with their money (and then she went into a rant about how the US is helping Israel and crap). That was the turning point for me when I decided that it's either one or the other, you can't draw a fine line in such matters. I don't see how some of you advocate same sex marriage, yet would deny someone the right to their property. You either support big government, and put up with the crap that they generate, or support small government and continue on with your daily life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Doesn't this quote mean anything to people these days: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?
And it's not just for the freedom of the press, but it encompasses all spheres of expression, including property and having the right to discriminate on your own property.

---

Of course that still has meaning! We're in the middle of defining what free expression and private property means, and how that intersects areas of public life in open societies.

Quote:

---

That was the turning point for me when I decided that it's either one or the other, you can't draw a fine line in such matters. I don't see how some of you advocate same sex marriage, yet would deny someone the right to their property. You either support big government, and put up with the crap that they generate, or support small government and continue on with your daily life.

---

It's not black-and-white clear cut, no. I'm not convinced this has much to do with Big Government at all, unless you consider our courts as part of bloated bureaucracy. If anything, at least in PA, it's our local and state government that's generated more crap than federal agencies. :bulb:

^^I came across two youtube videos yesterday, about Thomas Sowell, whose an African American and a libertarian. He offers some very interesting facts, and they're well worth watching:



Especially this one:

Draco, you're bringing in topics about welfare and housing now, but I'm not sure why. Other than wanting to discuss libertarian ideology, are you vaguely tying these things to "preferential treatment for minorities" as some kind of affirmative action....or what? :confused:

^^The welfare video didn't have anything to do with the topic, but I thought it worth sharing. The second one I was relating to your last comment about local, state and federal governments. I'm tying them to the whole big government argument, which is the theme of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

^^The welfare video didn't have anything to do with the topic, but I thought it worth sharing. The second one I was relating to your last comment about local, state and federal governments. I'm tying them to the whole big government argument, which is the theme of this thread.

---

Gee, I thought the theme of this thread was discrimination---weighing individual civil rights + private property rights + laws. Not so much big vs small government, but the role of government.

^^Discrimination and the anti laws are the by products of a big government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

^^Discrimination and the anti laws are the by products of a big government.

---

Or the by-product of a constitution, that is a living, dynamic document.



By the way, Draco, what's up with the ^^ in your posts? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Yes, like Freedom from being discriminated against.....

---

Sure, if you are talking about the government I would agree. If you are talking equal protection under the law, I would agree. We aren't talking about the government or equal protection under the law though, we are talking about acts that occur on private property. Your right not to be discriminated against does not trump the property owners right to dictate what legal activities occur on his or her property.