Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away a gay couple

[Khendraja'aro]

And when you say 'open to the public' I get the impression that you're talking about something owned by the government

And here we have a prime example of an idiot. You "get the impression"? Yes, of course, when I'm talking about a restaurant, I'm clearly talking about a "government owned restaurant".

For chrissakes, do you actually read what you're writing?

And you should stop drinking the "all regulations are evil" coolaid. That's what's gotten us into several messes in the first place.

Or how do you think the Gulf Spill came into existance in the first place?

[Draco]

We don't have hotels or restaurants "owned by the government" (like a Public Library or Municipal gym/pool).

Then what's the point of saying a privately owned hotel is "open to the public", when it should be open to whom ever the owners wish to permit.

The reasons for state health and safety inspections are important are because of food-borne illnesses (hepatitis, e-coli, salmonella), and fire risks.

You can't just open a shop selling home-cooked foods, using household toasters or crock pots, or multiple extension cords. We have public Fire departments that respond to private property.

I know that. Like I said earlier, it shouldn't be the governments responsibility.

And here we have a prime example of an idiot. You "get the impression"? Yes, of course, when I'm talking about a restaurant, I'm clearly talking about a "government owned restaurant".

Maybe you should be more clear in what you say. But if you're going to use insults against me, then I won't bother.

[Wraith]

Check PMs, Khen.

[GGT]

Then what's the point of saying a privately owned hotel is "open to the public", when it should be open to whom ever the owners wish to permit.

Seriously? I'm not sure why you're trying to redefine what Open to the Public means. Let alone why you can't see the problems with private ownership excluding whomever they wish.

You're in Australia, right? How about if all "private" shops, gas stations, grocery stores etc. started posting signs saying No Aborigines Allowed. Their private property, their business, pick their customers at will.....and all that.

I know that. Like I said earlier, it shouldn't be the governments responsibility.

The government here means municipal or township Fire Departments, operated with public tax dollars. They provide service to everyone (yes, even tax evaders) and its their responsibility to help shape fire codes and laws. It's not meant to be intrusive to peoples' freeeedoms, but to spend our money wisely by reducing fire risks.

What kind of crazy town would want people throwing up a wooden shanty food shop, running extension cords to "household" appliances, using open flame pits with lighter fluid....? I mean, it's the 21st century Draco, and we don't live in a third world country.

[Enoch the Red]

I would propose that legislation plays a part in the process. Of course you can't out-law hating blacks and expect good results, that's the Reagan answer. But, if we forbid the authorities from saying that's what the nigger/faggot/woman deserves, then we have a chance at actually changing societal pressures.

I absolutely think that the authorities should not endorse discrimination. I think any public good or service should be free of bigotry of any type. What people do in their own homes and businesses though should not fall under the sphere of government.

Is the system I propose capable of being abused? Yes. I would be the first to recognize that.

If we remove the authority endorsing discrimination, people have more lee-way in making their own choice. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for a libertarian, but we are very much swayed by the moods of what we perceive as our neighbours and peers.

If your neighbors, and the people you worked with decided that the Untermenchsen and other undesirables were lazy, no good free-loaders, are you concerned that your own views would be altered? Do you not believe that reason plays any role in people's thought process, and that reason itself operates on a deeper and more compelling level than peer pressure?

Maybe it doesn't. Hell, there are lots of people who do terrible things because their friends push it. That's one of liberties risks, I'll grant you.

[Draco]

Seriously? I'm not sure why you're trying to redefine what Open to the Public means. Let alone why you can't see the problems with private ownership excluding whomever they wish.

Just that "open to the public" makes it sound like the owners have no right to deny entrance to whomever they wish. I can see the problems, but it still doesn't justify it in my eyes.

You're in Australia, right? How about if all "private" shops, gas stations, grocery stores etc. started posting signs saying No Aborigines Allowed. Their private property, their business, pick their customers at will.....and all that.

These days such a thing would never happen, plus the public wouldn't stand for it. I know what you're getting at...but it was the general (white) public who stood up against the discrimination of non Anglo-Saxon people, not the government (who instigated it).

The government here means municipal or township Fire Departments, operated with public tax dollars. They provide service to everyone (yes, even tax evaders) and its their responsibility to help shape fire codes and laws. It's not meant to be intrusive to peoples' freeeedoms, but to spend our money wisely by reducing fire risks.

What kind of crazy town would want people throwing up a wooden shanty food shop, running extension cords to "household" appliances, using open flame pits with lighter fluid....? I mean, it's the 21st century Draco, and we don't live in a third world country.

I know and understand all of that. I'm only being consistent with my reasoning/view that the government should have limited power in the doings of its citizens. I don't see how I can endorse the likes of same sex marriage, yet not support a persons right to their property. It's either one or the other. As to the government providing a service to everyone by inspecting restaurants, I'm sure a private institution could just as easily do this and provide the relevant certification so the public will know that it's safe to eat there. I wouldn't want to dine somewhere where they didn't have this certification/approval.

[Nessus]

I absolutely think that the authorities should not endorse discrimination. I think any public good or service should be free of bigotry of any type. What people do in their own homes and businesses though should not fall under the sphere of government.

Is the system I propose capable of being abused? Yes. I would be the first to recognize that.

If your neighbors, and the people you worked with decided that the Untermenchsen and other undesirables were lazy, no good free-loaders, are you concerned that your own views would be altered? Do you not believe that reason plays any role in people's thought process, and that reason itself operates on a deeper and more compelling level than peer pressure?

Maybe it doesn't. Hell, there are lots of people who do terrible things because their friends push it. That's one of liberties risks, I'll grant you.

I don't know. The problem is that history seems to show that we are all too happy to look away so long as it helps us. Or keeps us out of harm's way, at any rate.

And also that the 'tyranny of the majority' is a real force in democracies, I doubt negroes (or homosexuals) would be as accepted as they are in the US today without some pressure from above. Of course the negro enjoyed more government enforced help than the faggot, but I wouldn't renege on government pressure in these matters just yet.

So long as we accept as axioms equality and equal chance among all members of society, we need external pressure to weed out the lingering cultural artefacts such as perceived ethnic clashes and the various stigmas around 'alternative sexualities'. In that sense, I think authorities should actively move against discrimination. But that's robbing people of a choice?

[GGT]

I happened to see this on TV tonight. What an articulate and bright 19 year old! His moms must be very proud.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...y-of-Zach-Wahl

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey, I was just about to post that in the Youtube thread.

[GGT]

I've watched it more than once. Very impressive young man. Saw his moms and sister on TV yesterday doing an interview with him, since he's gone viral. He was asked if he'd run for the Iowa legislature when he turns 21.....he said nah, he wants to be an engineer.

[Enoch the Red]

I don't know. The problem is that history seems to show that we are all too happy to look away so long as it helps us. Or keeps us out of harm's way, at any rate.

Too true.

And also that the 'tyranny of the majority' is a real force in democracies, I doubt negroes (or homosexuals) would be as accepted as they are in the US today without some pressure from above. Of course the negro enjoyed more government enforced help than the faggot, but I wouldn't renege on government pressure in these matters just yet.

I can't help but feel like the government that is powerful enough, and mandated to, enforce things like discrimination policies is also capable of creating and enforcing equally bigoted policies. You bring up a prime example when you talk about homosexuals. Governments are dictating who can and can't get married, (something I believe should be a private contract between two or more people) based on their perceived benefit or threat to "society." Does that seem right to you?

So long as we accept as axioms equality and equal chance among all members of society, we need external pressure to weed out the lingering cultural artefacts such as perceived ethnic clashes and the various stigmas around 'alternative sexualities'. In that sense, I think authorities should actively move against discrimination. But that's robbing people of a choice?

I think the authorities should do what they can to set the right example, but until the wider culture has accepted that the color of one's skin or credo shouldn't play a role in the treatment they receive that external pressure is meaningless.

The risk of allowing and encouraging governmental solutions entail opening yourself up the possibility of greater intrusions on liberty and freedoms, as outlined above.

[Nessus]

I can't help but feel like the government that is powerful enough, and mandated to, enforce things like discrimination policies is also capable of creating and enforcing equally bigoted policies. You bring up a prime example when you talk about homosexuals. Governments are dictating who can and can't get married, (something I believe should be a private contract between two or more people) based on their perceived benefit or threat to "society." Does that seem right to you?

No, but that's solely because it is not founded on anything rational; the Pubbie love-affair with the religious ding-bats is shameful all around. I don't necessarily have a problem with the government dictating which partnerships get society's assistance (which is why gay marriage is a thing to begin with) so long as it makes any kind of sense. It's in society's interests to make sure that children are reared in stable homes and people in comas are let to pass by those who know their desires best, so the government and the private sector can subsidize some of their married lifestyle for the "greater good". But equally serving the greater good is making sure that 50-year-old Mormon men don't marry 12-year-old girls with the full intent of raping the bride after the ceremony, or keeping some alcoholic trucker from marrying a developmentally challenged yet fertile woman to abuse and use her. The government should, in my opinion, have some say in what is an acceptable partnership and what isn't, but it should be based on rationality, not religious hoo-haw.

I think the authorities should do what they can to set the right example, but until the wider culture has accepted that the color of one's skin or credo shouldn't play a role in the treatment they receive that external pressure is meaningless.

The risk of allowing and encouraging governmental solutions entail opening yourself up the possibility of greater intrusions on liberty and freedoms, as outlined above.

Admittedly I am not a historian in any sense of the word, and knowledgeable on a very small portion of history, but it is my impression that without that external pressure the wider culture takes far longer in adapting. The South was forced, at gun-point, to accept that the Negro is a human, and it took further legislation in the past century to make the wider culture come face to face with that to the point it has today. Of course conversely governments dictating homosexuality as a disease act against the homosexuals' rights, but the government can also hypocritically turn coat and punish people lashing out at homosexuals when the government is less owned by religious ding-bats. The chance for abuse is there, but the chance of abuse is omnipresent in all exchanges of power, and I can't quite comprehend a society without a power structure of some sort. But I would prefer one with at least a facade of transparency and democracy over some corporate dystopia.

[GGT]

I can't help but feel like the government that is powerful enough, and mandated to, enforce things like discrimination policies is also capable of creating and enforcing equally bigoted policies.

Why do you feel that way? If a policy is based on protecting minority rights, then isn't that an irrational fear?

I think the authorities should do what they can to set the right example, but until the wider culture has accepted that the color of one's skin or credo shouldn't play a role in the treatment they receive that external pressure is meaningless.

What do you mean by authorities "setting the right example"? Credo is all over the place in American life---it's on our money, in our courtrooms, in senate and congressional buildings---with religious pinnings chiseled in granite and marble.

The risk of allowing and encouraging governmental solutions entail opening yourself up the possibility of greater intrusions on liberty and freedoms, as outlined above.

Please elaborate on that. Seriously, give an example of how liberty and freedom for everyone means less liberty and freedom for you?

[Enoch the Red]

Why do you feel that way? If a policy is based on protecting minority rights, then isn't that an irrational fear?

Because governments never change, overreach, or falter in their omniscience? Far better a government that is limited in its ability to inflict harm, than one you're forced to trust not to.

If capital punishment has been instituted with the intent of punishing serial killing, kiddy diddling, child molesters, then isn't it irrational to worry that they might put an innocent person to death?

What do you mean by authorities "setting the right example"? Credo is all over the place in American life---it's on our money, in our courtrooms, in senate and congressional buildings---with religious pinnings chiseled in granite and marble.

Government and the public sector should not discriminate in any way. I think this is the second or third time I've restated this very simple concept.

To be honest, I'm not sure why you are getting hung up on credo, or what point you are really driving at here.

Please elaborate on that. Seriously, give an example of how liberty and freedom for everyone means less liberty and freedom for you?

You seem to believe that everyone has a right to everything. Simply put, I don't. Private contracts and property rights trump your perceived right to shop, sleep, and eat wherever you want. You shouldn't have the right to compel me to serve you.

As I've said, this idea has flaws. Freedom and liberty are inherently dangerous, and can certainly be subject to the irrationally of man. Is it right for people to hurl abuse and vitriol at each other? I don't think so. Should it be illegal? Absolutely not.

[GGT]

Because governments never change, overreach, or falter in their omniscience? Far better a government that is limited in its ability to inflict harm, than one you're forced to trust not to.

Our government 'enforcement' (of things like anti-discrimination policies) comes through our court system, because we're a nation of laws. The goal is to give minorities legal recourse from harm someone has inflicted on them----not to give government overreaching powers.

If capital punishment has been instituted with the intent of punishing serial killing, kiddy diddling, child molesters, then isn't it irrational to worry that they might put an innocent person to death?

Good example. The death penalty shouldn't be used (IMO) but the federal government isn't telling states to stop its use or ban it nationally.

Government and the public sector should not discriminate in any way. I think this is the second or third time I've restated this very simple concept.

To be honest, I'm not sure why you are getting hung up on credo, or what point you are really driving at here.

Just trying to get a grasp of what you're saying. Authorities should set a good example, but that external pressure is meaningless? Everyone in the wider culture can continue to refuse service to blacks, Muslims, Jews, gays, whatever.....until one day they have an epiphany and change their bigoted values?

You seem to believe that everyone has a right to everything. Simply put, I don't. Private contracts and property rights trump your perceived right to shop, sleep, and eat wherever you want. You shouldn't have the right to compel me to serve you.

Now come one, don't exaggerate. I don't believe everyone has a right to everything. Contracts and property rights are challenged all the time. A private diner's club can't be compelled to serve me, but a public restaurant can't refuse me service just for being white. A private membership hotel chain can't be compelled to serve me, but a public hotel can't refuse me service just for being gay.

Call it discrimination, segregation, bigotry or xenophobia....the US still has plenty of legal ways for private places to remain private or "exclusive". There can be a Christian-whites-only-confederate-flag-flying private club for members only. But they can't pose as an open-to-the-public shop selling flags, and refuse service to blacks or Jews who enter.

As I've said, this idea has flaws. Freedom and liberty are inherently dangerous, and can certainly be subject to the irrationally of man. Is it right for people to hurl abuse and vitriol at each other? I don't think so. Should it be illegal? Absolutely not.

You didn't really answer my question, though. You have a perception that more freedom or liberty for others will mean less freedom or liberty for you. Got an example?

[Enoch the Red]

Our government 'enforcement' (of things like anti-discrimination policies) comes through our court system, because we're a nation of laws. The goal is to give minorities legal recourse from harm someone has inflicted on them----not to give government overreaching powers.

Not sure I'm following. The courts are part of the government. Are you saying the courts are incapable of overreaching, misjudging, and faltering in their omniscience?

Are you also equating not being served with being harmed? The disagreement we are having is a very fundamental one of positive versus negative rights.

Just trying to get a grasp of what you're saying. Authorities should set a good example, but that external pressure is meaningless? Everyone in the wider culture can continue to refuse service to blacks, Muslims, Jews, gays, whatever.....until one day they have an epiphany and change their bigoted values?

So, you think it's legislation that changes peoples minds and alters their perceptions!

Now we are getting somewhere. Why not start by getting rid of that pesky first amendment? I mean, we just have to improve public discourse, right? People can hold their own views and opinions, but only if they do so privately, or in clubs. Public expressions should be legislated to give minorities and the disenfranchised the freedom from hate and discrimination.

Now come one, don't exaggerate. I don't believe everyone has a right to everything. Contracts and property rights are challenged all the time. A private diner's club can't be compelled to serve me, but a public restaurant can't refuse me service just for being white. A private membership hotel chain can't be compelled to serve me, but a public hotel can't refuse me service just for being gay.

I think you're making an artificial distinction between public and private entities.

Call it discrimination, segregation, bigotry or xenophobia....the US still has plenty of legal ways for private places to remain private or "exclusive". There can be a Christian-whites-only-confederate-flag-flying private club for members only. But they can't pose as an open-to-the-public shop selling flags, and refuse service to blacks or Jews who enter.

Why not?

You didn't really answer my question, though. You have a perception that more freedom or liberty for others will mean less freedom or liberty for you. Got an example?

I think you are misunderstanding my position entirely. My perception is that this isn't a question of more freedom or liberty. If you truly believe this to be the case, you are saying you have rights to everything you want, when and where you want it. My position is that advocating freedom and liberty for others often means accepting distasteful positions by bigots, racists, sexists, et al. That these people exist and abuse the freedoms they have doesn't invalidate the freedoms they should have access to.

[GGT]

Enoch, your libertarian philosophy is clear. I'm asking you to be illustrative....give me an example of how the evil gummint is usurping your freedoms or liberties, by having anti-discrimination laws. (Laws that came to be after a change in some cultural values. Rosa Parks refusing to ride the back of the bus comes to mind. Whites Only lunch counters. Jim Crow etc.)

Do you really want to return to pre-1960? When Jews, blacks, women, Asians, Indians, legal immigrants, anyone with a 'funny' name or foreign accent could be refused service at a lunch counter, be told to ride the back of the bus, couldn't ride in a White Only cab or drink from White Only water fountains, be considered for a job, an apartment for rent, or buying a home? After all, if "private" people could discriminate at-will, you know damn well plenty would.

Today it'd be refusing Mexicans or Muslims, teh gays, women in a head scarf....and they'd simply have to accept being considered as lepers or society's outcasts? No, that's not what freedom and liberty for all is supposed to mean.

You said external pressure (via laws or examples by authorities) won't change peoples' values or attitudes. That's true, I agree. There will always be some homophobes, racists or bigots. But the laws are written to give voice to minorities who are discriminated against, to protect their inherent value as fellow human beings. I have no idea how Libertarian ideals can ignore that, or why you wouldn't want our judicial system to ensure basic freedoms for everyone.

The risk of allowing and encouraging governmental solutions entail opening yourself up the possibility of greater intrusions on liberty and freedoms, as outlined above.

Again, please elaborate on this with an example. Because I'm just not seeing this slippery slope you do. We're not going to lose our 1st or 2nd Amendment rights, there aren't going to be Politically Correct Secret Police patrolling the shopping malls, your neighbors can't get you arrested for brewing beer in your bathtub, or having wild orgies in your bedroom.



(However, I'm curious why many Small Limited Government MYOB proponents are the ones trying to restrict sex-ed, access to abortion and certain birth control, and butt into our bedrooms and sex lives.)

[Khendraja'aro]

You said external pressure (via laws or examples by authorities) won't change peoples' values or attitudes.

Actually, it will to some extent. The generation during which those laws came to pass may feel the "restrictions". The next generations, however, which don't know any other status save the current one will think differently.

I.e. it's just a question of time for the morons to die out.

[Enoch the Red]

Enoch, your libertarian philosophy is clear. I'm asking you to be illustrative....give me an example of how the evil gummint is usurping your freedoms or liberties, by having anti-discrimination laws. (Laws that came to be after a change in some cultural values. Rosa Parks refusing to ride the back of the bus comes to mind. Whites Only lunch counters. Jim Crow etc.)

You don't see how a government telling private businesses who they do or don't do business with is usurping freedoms? Really?

Furthermore, anti-discrimination laws are often the foundations of discriminatory legislation. Affirmative action laws that gives an advantage to one group of people are openly discriminatory, and also perfectly acceptable. Let me say that again... There are institutions that are pursuing openly discriminatory policies, (including public universities that accept public funding) because of these laws.

Now, to be perfectly clear, I have no issues with private organizations, groups, or schools pursuing the pipe dream of affirmative action on their own. If that's how they choose to expend their efforts, so much the better. What I do have problems with are these institutions being able to receive public funds for doing so.

How is this anything other that institutionalizing discrimination?

How is this not immediately obvious to you? I'm sure it's because, you'll argue, the ends are noble, the cause is just, and therefore the means can't be that bad... right?

Do you really want to return to pre-1960? When Jews, blacks, women, Asians, Indians, legal immigrants, anyone with a 'funny' name or foreign accent could be refused service at a lunch counter, be told to ride the back of the bus, couldn't ride in a White Only cab or drink from White Only water fountains, be considered for a job, an apartment for rent, or buying a home? After all, if "private" people could discriminate at-will, you know damn well plenty would.

I absolutely do want to return to a world where people are free to be as wrongheaded, racist, and idiotic as they see fit. In that world I'll be the first to boycott their stores, shame them publicly, and call forth justly deserved righteous indignation on them until they change their ways, or go out of business. I'm sure I would not be alone.

Today it'd be refusing Mexicans or Muslims, teh gays, women in a head scarf....and they'd simply have to accept being considered as lepers or society's outcasts? No, that's not what freedom and liberty for all is supposed to mean.

Is that how you would treat them? Is that how I would treat them? I find it absolutely terrifying that the only thing you think is stopping the vast majority of people from being openly bigoted racists is the abstract fear of a lawsuit.

Freedom and liberty for all does not mean you get to shop, eat, or sleep wherever you want, GGT. Echolalial repetition will not change that fact.

You said external pressure (via laws or examples by authorities) won't change peoples' values or attitudes. That's true, I agree. There will always be some homophobes, racists or bigots. But the laws are written to give voice to minorities who are discriminated against, to protect their inherent value as fellow human beings. I have no idea how Libertarian ideals can ignore that, or why you wouldn't want our judicial system to ensure basic freedoms for everyone.

I do support using the judicial system to ensure basic freedoms for everyone. My idea of basic freedoms don't include eating at Uncle Jessie's Southern Pride White's Only BBQ. You seem to value eating there more than private property rights.

Again, please elaborate on this with an example. Because I'm just not seeing this slippery slope you do. We're not going to lose our 1st or 2nd Amendment rights, there aren't going to be Politically Correct Secret Police patrolling the shopping malls, your neighbors can't get you arrested for brewing beer in your bathtub, or having wild orgies in your bedroom.

I do believe you've missed the boat. Apply your own logic to the first amendment and then tell me why you don't support repealing it.

[GGT]

Altruism and hopes of an ideal society won't make it so. Kumbaya?

It's strange for you to take this approach toward me, as if I just don't value liberty, freedom, and justice for all because I support anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are meant to put Created Equal into action, not just high falootin' words on a piece of paper. They protect our civil rights by giving legal recourse for victims of discrimination.

It's as if you're trying to justify bigotry and discrimination as some pesky little side effect of liberty. Something we'll just have to live with, because democracy and liberty are messy. You don't want rules for business because that infringes on their right to be bigots? If it makes the individual as important as the corporation , well that just won't do in our corporate world? Poppycock.

You can't even give me an example of what you're truly concerned might happen. But I can say what parts of our country would look like if private business could turn away anyone they want. No gas for you, Muslim! No apartment for you, brown or black person! You can't buy groceries here, we don't allow no homos, and you look a bit butch! Go away, only white folk are allowed here! What a great way to live, huh. Shining example of American Freeeedom, when it only means freedom of movement or commerce for certain people.

You don't see how a government telling private businesses who they do or don't do business with is usurping freedoms? Really?

Seriously, you're taking Libertarianism a bit too far. At least from my perspective. I don't want to be turned away from grocers (or wonder what's in their food, and be so distrustful of rodent droppings or poison) that I have to start growing my own damn food. No one wants to wait for large groups of people to be denied housing, and either start tent cities or move out of town, wandering town to town like gypsies, hoping to find a place they ARE welcomed. Large sections of the country would revert to Good Ole White Boys, gated off and excluding XYZ. And you know it.

[Enoch the Red]

It's strange for you to take this approach toward me, as if I just don't value liberty, freedom, and justice for all because I support anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are meant to put Created Equal into action, not just high falootin' words on a piece of paper. They protect our civil rights by giving legal recourse for victims of discrimination.

You're right, GGT. I don't think you value liberty and freedom, at least not in the same way I do. I firmly believe you advocate justice for all, but only as you would narrowly define it. That being said, I'm sure you'd say the same about me, only with freedom and liberty swapped for justice.

It's as if you're trying to justify bigotry and discrimination as some pesky little side effect of liberty. Something we'll just have to live with, because democracy and liberty are messy. You don't want rules for business because that infringes on their right to be bigots? If it makes the individual as important as the corporation , well that just won't do in our corporate world? Poppycock.

You are absolutely right. Bigotry, discrimination, hate speech, all foul, disgusting things, and all side effects of freedom and liberty. You're also right that I also support peoples rights to believe in, and practice them. Freedom and liberties extend not just to the things we find agreeable, but to all manner of things that would inspire disgust in any rational person. This is part and parcel of freedom, GGT, and that's something I don't think you've come to terms with, and I certainly don't get the impression that you understand. The first amendment only means anything if it covers speech which goes beyond the pale. That's why 'liberal' groups like the ACLU will defend white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and NAMBLA. It's not because they agree with, or support these groups, but that they value freedom and liberty above the obvious harm these groups can cause to society.

So, again, using your logic, why shouldn't the first amendment be repealed?

You can't even give me an example of what you're truly concerned might happen. But I can say what parts of our country would look like if private business could turn away anyone they want. No gas for you, Muslim! No apartment for you, brown or black person! You can't buy groceries here, we don't allow no homos, and you look a bit butch! Go away, only white folk are allowed here! What a great way to live, huh. Shining example of American Freeeedom, when it only means freedom of movement or commerce for certain people.

Are you arguing there aren't parts of the country that don't already look like this, in spite of your much touted legislation?

Seriously, you're taking Libertarianism a bit too far. At least from my perspective. I don't want to be turned away from grocers (or wonder what's in their food, and be so distrustful of rodent droppings or poison) that I have to start growing my own damn food. No one wants to wait for large groups of people to be denied housing, and either start tent cities or move out of town, wandering town to town like gypsies, hoping to find a place they ARE welcomed. Large sections of the country would revert to Good Ole White Boys, gated off and excluding XYZ. And you know it.

So, just to be clear, the only thing you think keeping people from tearing at the throats of their friends and neighbors is the fear of a discrimination lawsuit?

I think this is where the discussion ends, because this is an irreconcilable difference between us. You're operating on the assumption that huge swathes of the country are only being kept in check by the omnipresent threat of anti-discrimination lawsuits. I happen to think people are capable of rational thought that is not subservient to fear. I'm not sure there's language to bridge that gap.

[GGT]

You're right, GGT. I don't think you value liberty and freedom, at least not in the same way I do. I firmly believe you advocate justice for all, but only as you would narrowly define it. That being said, I'm sure you'd say the same about me, only with freedom and liberty swapped for justice.

This soap box style you're using doesn't suit me well.

You are absolutely right. Bigotry, discrimination, hate speech, all foul, disgusting things, and all side effects of freedom and liberty. You're also right that I also support peoples rights to believe in, and practice them. Freedom and liberties extend not just to the things we find agreeable, but to all manner of things that would inspire disgust in any rational person. This is part and parcel of freedom, GGT, and that's something I don't think you've come to terms with, and I certainly don't get the impression that you understand.

Neither does this lecture approach, or insinuating I just don't understand. This isn't the 18th century or the Wild Wild West. Freedoms and liberties also come with limits and constraints. A civil society has to have laws, laws that can change over time, weighing harm against harm. Deal with it.

The first amendment only means anything if it covers speech which goes beyond the pale. That's why 'liberal' groups like the ACLU will defend white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and NAMBLA. It's not because they agree with, or support these groups, but that they value freedom and liberty above the obvious harm these groups can cause to society.

Stop shifting around. You were going on about disliking anti-discrimination laws, and that private business has a right to discriminate against race, gender, religion, ethnicity. Yet you tell me I've mixed up private and public.....

People are freeee to be as hateful and bigoted as they want in their heads, in their private homes, in certain 'establishments'. They can organize and operate private membership clubs and groups for those behaviors, and march in public parades. But they can't legally operate a business "open to the public" while posting NO BLACKS ALLOWED signs, or refusing service to Jews, Muslims, or women.

You're fine with them not using public funds---and there are limits to that. Being on a state or city road, or in an incorporated town, and using municipal services, means being "open to the public" has certain requirements. Uncle Jessie's Southern Pride White's Only BBQ could probably operate on private land, down a private lane, as a private-membership club. But not on Main Street or at the Mall.

If you're connecting business freedom to discriminate with the first amendment, that free speech expression ends before yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

So, again, using your logic, why shouldn't the first amendment be repealed?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Come on now....

Are you arguing there aren't parts of the country that don't already look like this, in spite of your much touted legislation?

So, just to be clear, the only thing you think keeping people from tearing at the throats of their friends and neighbors is the fear of a discrimination lawsuit?

No and No.

I think this is where the discussion ends, because this is an irreconcilable difference between us. You're operating on the assumption that huge swathes of the country are only being kept in check by the omnipresent threat of anti-discrimination lawsuits. I happen to think people are capable of rational thought that is not subservient to fear. I'm not sure there's language to bridge that gap.

I give credit to most of humanity, too ya know. Also trying to be realistic. There are huge swathes of our country that are kept civil by police presence and laws. (When the power goes out and the police are understaffed, there is looting.)

FEAR is not only present in much of our culture, but it's used as a political weapon. We are not post-racial or secular yet. Read the news, turn on the TV, take a look around the web. Be afraid, very afraid. The terrorists are coming, the immigrants are coming, the Mexicans are coming, the Chinese are coming, the Muslims are coming.....the Liberals are coming.....to take away our jobs, our marriages, our freeeedoms, our country!

Another version is your FEAR of our government (of the people, by the people, for the people). Be afraid, be very afraid. The government is coming to take away our guns, our businesses, our rights, our Constitution! A disturbing percent of Americans still believe President Obama is a Muslim Communist from Kenya. FFS.

A rational dose of skepticism is one thing. Idealism is another. Yeah, there has to be a bridge between those gaps.

[Nessus]

I absolutely do want to return to a world where people are free to be as wrongheaded, racist, and idiotic as they see fit. In that world I'll be the first to boycott their stores, shame them publicly, and call forth justly deserved righteous indignation on them until they change their ways, or go out of business. I'm sure I would not be alone.

Has this ever worked in practice? I can't off-hand think of any historical examples, do you have some?

[Loki]

Apartheid South Africa.

[Enoch the Red]

This soap box style you're using doesn't suit me well.

I'm sorry?

Neither does this lecture approach, or insinuating I just don't understand. This isn't the 18th century or the Wild Wild West. Freedoms and liberties also come with limits and constraints. A civil society has to have laws, laws that can change over time, weighing harm against harm. Deal with it.

I'm sure that those truisms and aphorisms have meaning to you, but you're not putting them into the context of our conversation. Not once have I said that freedoms and liberties don't have limits and constraints. Not once have I said that laws shouldn't be changed. This is especially ironic as it is you who is defending the status quo.

Stop shifting around. You were going on about disliking anti-discrimination laws, and that private business has a right to discriminate against race, gender, religion, ethnicity. Yet you tell me I've mixed up private and public.....

Why don't you answer the question? Can freedom of speech be used to intimidate and alarm, persecute and abuse minorities and other disenfranchised groups?

You're the one trying to make artificial distinctions for businesses, not me.

People are freeee to be as hateful and bigoted as they want in their heads, in their private homes, in certain 'establishments'. They can organize and operate private membership clubs and groups for those behaviors, and march in public parades. But they can't legally operate a business "open to the public" while posting NO BLACKS ALLOWED signs, or refusing service to Jews, Muslims, or women.

You're right. Currently a business owner could just refuse service for any mundane reason, and be completely within their rights. Instead of being publicly racist, they now are privately racist.

End result to the customer who has been turned away? The same.

And this is what you consider victory?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Come on now....

That's not a loaded question GGT. It doesn't even begin to qualify. It's a question asked in earnest. Do you really deny that the same reasoning you've used to deny a business owner the right to do with their property as they see fit could be used to deny anyone the right to free speech?

If you're connecting business freedom to discriminate with the first amendment, that free speech expression ends before yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Yes? And?

I give credit to most of humanity, too ya know. Also trying to be realistic. There are huge swathes of our country that are kept civil by police presence and laws. (When the power goes out and the police are understaffed, there is looting.)

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

Another version is your FEAR of our government (of the people, by the people, for the people). Be afraid, be very afraid. The government is coming to take away our guns, our businesses, our rights, our Constitution! A disturbing percent of Americans still believe President Obama is a Muslim Communist from Kenya. FFS.

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."

[Nessus]

Apartheid South Africa.

What amount of role would you ascribe to outside cultural pressure, esp. from major nations that had out-lawed discrimination?

[Loki]

What amount of role would you ascribe to outside cultural pressure, esp. from major nations that had out-lawed discrimination?

It certainly had a role, but ultimately the change came from within, with many white South Africans being unwilling to back the continuation of apartheid.

[Nessus]

It certainly had a role, but ultimately the change came from within, with many white South Africans being unwilling to back the continuation of apartheid.

And how soon are we to expect the same kind of development in, say, apartheid Israel? I'd hope close to never, but the mechanics are the same. And you're doing a pretty heavy hand-waving there saying that ultimately the change came from within, do you have citations?

[littlelolligagged]

It certainly had a role, but ultimately the change came from within, with many white South Africans being unwilling to back the continuation of apartheid.

I watched a really weird Disney movie about this once - it involved a white girl who was a foreign exchange student from S. Africa to a black family in the US. I actually watched the whole thing even though it was just the result of my turning on the teevee in the bedroom and the kids having left it on the Disney channel.

Meanwhile, in the real world, most white South Africans had very little interest in rocking the boat.

[Nessus]

I watched a really weird Disney movie about this once - it involved a white girl who was a foreign exchange student from S. Africa to a black family in the US. I actually watched the whole thing even though it was just the result of my turning on the teevee in the bedroom and the kids having left it on the Disney channel.

Meanwhile, in the real world, most white South Africans had very little interest in rocking the boat.

Didn't Lewkowski prove scientifically and over and over again how South Africa was the worst possible place, period? How could they have had better progress at being progressive than the United States of Awesome?