Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away a gay couple

[GGT]

I haven't been properly following your posts to other users. But it's good to see that the US still allows a degree of freedom. I'd hate to see it end up like the UK.
Even if it's allowing maniacs to establish a 'Church of Jesus Christ Aryan Nations' compound: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/bus (the first part of the blog talks about them). Couldn't believe such people still exist, but out of a population of 300 million, there's bound to be a few awry types.

Freedom to exclude, or discriminate....yes that still exists in the US. (That's why I think Enoch is barking up the wrong tree in his argument.)

In regards to the examples you listed, what if the exact same scenario happened in the US with the Christian hotel owners in the UK? Would the owners be penalised? Or would they be protected by the many religious politicians?

We don't have nationally recognized same-sex marriage rights, let alone protections for sexual orientation. Some states have laws prohibiting discrimination in employment or housing, but we don't have any Sexual Orientation Regulation like the UK does. It varies by state and it's piecemeal for marriage, adoption, spousal benefits, business practices. We do have protections for religious entities and affiliations, though.

My guess is, if this happened in the US.....the B & B operators would be able to exclude any un-married couples, claiming it's part of their religious belief toward marriage.

I didn't mean mind control, rather peoples will. What they think, or say about a person or group.

Even some hate speech is protected by law. We do have Hate Crime laws and some anti-discrimination laws, but people are freeeee to be bigots, racists or homophobes in their mind, and sometimes even in business practices.

The notion that teh evil US gummint is infringing on Private Property rights doesn't reflect reality.

[Enoch the Red]

No, those are limited private membership enterprises. I'd count wholesalers in that group, who only sell to chosen vendors or merchants. Also private dining clubs and social clubs, where any individual walking in off the street can not enter. They don't post signs saying Whites Only but general signs like Private Club, Members Only, or Private Property.

What's the difference between a Ladies Only fitness club, which wears its own brand of discrimination on its sleeve, and a Gingers Only restaurant? What makes an entity a private membership enterprise? Do they have to sign an agreement before it's okay to discriminate?

Open-to-the-public businesses would Mobil gas stations, Piggly Wiggly grocery stores, Walgreen's pharmacies, Walmart, McDonald's.....etc.

What inherent qualities makes these businesses open to the public, besides company policy?

[GGT]

What's the difference between a Ladies Only fitness club, which wears its own brand of discrimination on its sleeve, and a Gingers Only restaurant? What makes an entity a private membership enterprise? Do they have to sign an agreement before it's okay to discriminate?

What inherent qualities makes these businesses open to the public, besides company policy?

What's any of that got to do with your assertion that the Big Bad Gummint is infringing on your Private Property Rights, with our current anti-discrimination laws?

[Enoch the Red]

What's any of that got to do with your assertion that the Big Bad Gummint is infringing on your Private Property Rights, with our current anti-discrimination laws?

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

[GGT]

I was explaining the US to Draco, compared to the UK. Since he asked. Other than expressing your disapproval of our discrimination laws, what're you doing, Enoch? Teatime?

[Nessus]

I couldn't get the quote function to actually function, so beat a faggot for Draco when you can

[Enoch the Red]

I was explaining the US to Draco, compared to the UK. Since he asked. Other than expressing your disapproval of our discrimination laws, what're you doing, Enoch? Teatime?

Asking questions you don't have answers to apparently.

For somebody who doesn't respond well to lectures and soap boxes, you seem to have no problem using both.

[GGT]

Asking questions you don't have answers to, apparently.

For somebody who doesn't respond well to lectures and soap boxes, you seem to have no problem using both.

Your questions aren't really aimed at a conversation or discussion.

I'm still waiting for your specific example of how private property rights are being infringed upon, directly related to US anti-discrimination laws.

[Enoch the Red]

Your questions aren't really aimed at a conversation or discussion.

I'm not sure how you exactly define discussion, but my response directly addressed the discussion we were/are having. If you'd like, I can outline how, step by step...

Me: What is considered an Open-to-the-Public enterprise in your mind? Are Ladies Only fitness centers Open-to-the-Public? Would a shop that advertised as Whites Only, or Men Only, or Christians Only, be considered open to the public?

You: "No, those are limited private membership enterprises. I'd count wholesalers in that group, who only sell to chosen vendors or merchants. Also private dining clubs and social clubs, where any individual walking in off the street can not enter. They don't post signs saying Whites Only but general signs like Private Club, Members Only, or Private Property."

Me: "What's the difference between a Ladies Only fitness club, which wears its own brand of discrimination on its sleeve, and a Gingers Only restaurant? What makes an entity a private membership enterprise? Do they have to sign an agreement before it's okay to discriminate?"

See how we were clearly having a discussion about a clearly defined topic, and the responses to one clearly followed preceding responses? Clearly.

I'm still waiting for your specific example of how private property rights are being infringed upon, directly related to US anti-discrimination laws.

A racist white property owner, (though I know I'm being redundant, property being synonymous with racism and all) can't bar untermenchen from entering his hotel, restaurant, etc...

He also is prohibited from choosing only ubermenschen from being his employees.

Is that specific enough for you?

[GGT]

I'm not sure how you exactly define the discussion, but it directly addresses the discussion we were/are having. If you'd like, I can outline how, step by step...
See how we were clearly having a discussion about a clearly defined topic, and the responses to one clearly followed preceding responses? Clearly.

The discussion farther back, in previous pages. Regarding your belief that US anti-discrimination laws generally aren't necessary, but are an example of an overreaching, omniscient, intrusive, punitive government.

A racist white property owner, (though I know I'm being redundant, property being synonymous with racism and all) can't bar untermenchen from entering his hotel, restaurant, etc...
He also is prohibited from choosing only ubermenschen from being his employees.
Is that specific enough for you?

Better, thanks. However, I think you're mistaken.

I've given examples of how private property can still be used by the white racist business person, to exclude untermensch as they define them. Either by claiming a religious exemption, or creating an exclusive-membership (or invitation only) entity. US laws aren't so vast or comprehensive that there aren't still ways to practice discrimination, especially by small business with few employees.

I can see how you'd think the laws aren't necessary, or even useful, given how discrimination/exclusion still exists. But then, you also said the laws were intended to change racist attitudes. I disagreed with that notion, and stated why.

[Enoch the Red]

The discussion farther back, in previous pages. Regarding your belief that US anti-discrimination laws generally aren't necessary, but are an example of an overreaching, omniscient, intrusive, punitive government.

A position I still maintain.

I'm also shocked, just shocked that you've suddenly discovered thread drift.

Better, thanks. However, I think you're mistaken.

Great. I think you're wrong too.

I've given examples of how private property can still be used by the white racist business person, to exclude untermensch as they define them. Either by claiming a religious exemption, or creating an exclusive-membership (or invitation only) entity. US laws aren't so vast or comprehensive that there aren't still ways to practice discrimination, especially by small business with few employees.

So, we've discovered racists can still be racists. Discrimination still can thrive. The only thing these laws do is... what again?

How does any of this refute my original premise that cultural shifts are the primary driver behind driving racism back, and not legislation?

[GGT]

A position I still maintain.

I'm also shocked, just shocked that you've suddenly discovered thread drift.

Hey now, I'm just trying to get this thread back on topic.

Great. I think you're wrong too.

So, we've discovered racists can still be racists. Discrimination still can thrive. The only thing these laws do is... what again?

Didn't we already do this part? Federal agencies can't discriminate (well, until recently DADT allowed the military to continue doing that); large corporations can't discriminate as a matter of policy; all people are assured equal access to (at least) federal services and business with nationally-operated Open-to-Public business.

A secondary benefit is giving people legal recourse if they've been "wronged". Since we're a nation of laws, we resolve many grievances in court. That's not to say peer pressure, community boycotts or voluntary anti-discrimination doesn't work, but they make not be as effective as comprehensive laws.

How does any of this refute my original premise that cultural shifts are the primary driver behind driving racism back, and not legislation?

You maintain that the purpose of the laws are to change racist attitudes or cultural values. I've agreed that many of our laws carry social engineering motives, to encourage certain behaviors. But since various forms of discrimination can/may never be eradicated from the human condition, I see the laws as protection for minority groups. And to open up freedom of movement between our states, where everyone can participate.

Once there's no smart phone app for finding "gay-friendly" or "Christian-hetero-married-only" hotels.....then yeah, our anti-discrimination laws might be outdated.

[Enoch the Red]

A secondary benefit is giving people legal recourse if they've been "wronged". Since we're a nation of laws, we resolve many grievances in court. That's not to say peer pressure, community boycotts or voluntary anti-discrimination doesn't work, but they make not be as effective as comprehensive laws.

People who have been wronged by not being given the service they demand of a proprietor on their private property?

Look, if this is a white owner of a national franchise in the South, rescind his right to the franchise. If it's an employee of a company who has a defined anti-discrimination policy, fire them, and make it a clause of their contract that they don't receive any severance.

Racists who are looking to discriminate aren't going to have any problems doing so, as you yourself have pointed out.

You maintain that the purpose of the laws are to change racist attitudes or cultural values. I've agreed that many of our laws carry social engineering motives, to encourage certain behaviors. But since various forms of discrimination can/may never be eradicated from the human condition, I see the laws as protection for minority groups. And to open up freedom of movement between our states, where everyone can participate.

If you feel that's all I've been driving at, let me even go a step further in clarifying my position. I think the laws don't act as protection for minorities, I believe they risk oppressing minorities. By taking a stance on how people should be treated, based on skin color, gender, sexual preference, religion (or lack thereof), you are granting the government powers that it not only shouldn't have, but that could lead to the real restriction of liberties, (for minorities and evil slave driving whities). By looking to the government to define and enforce natural and innate rights, you open yourself up to situations like the one we saw with DADT, where they can legally determine that because of a persons sexual orientation they are unable to serve their country. By giving the government the authority to determine what is, and is not discrimination, you are, perhaps unwittingly, giving tacit approval to the idea that it is the government that determines who is or isn't a real person, with real rights.

Do you want the Teabaggers and Redumblicans, (or whatever passes for a witty portmanteau now-a-days) to be able to decide who can marry? Do you want them to be able to decide who can fight in our armed services? Do you want them to be able to decide who can, or can't be served in a restaurant?

[GGT]

People who have been wronged by not being given the service they demand of a proprietor on their private property?

Depends on what they do with that private property, and how it translates into passersby looking for gas, or a candy bar, or a hotel room.

Look, if this is a white owner of a national franchise in the South, rescind his right to the franchise. If it's an employee of a company who has a defined anti-discrimination policy, fire them, and make it a clause of their contract that they don't receive any severance.

Sounds like you actually agree with our anti-discrimination laws, after all! But wait, you don't want to afford the right to discriminate for small business or Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs)?

Racists who are looking to discriminate aren't going to have any problems doing so, as you yourself have pointed out.

Yes, that's what I explained to Draco. You admitted the power of the national franchises, and the power of our federal anti-discrimiation laws. What does that mean for the mom 'n pop shop, on their "private property"?

If you feel that's all I've been driving at, let me even go a step further in clarifying my position. I think the laws don't act as protection for minorities, I believe they risk oppressing minorities.

How's that work in real life? Can you give an example?

By taking a stance on how people should be treated, based on skin color, gender, sexual preference, religion (or lack thereof), you are granting the government powers that it not only shouldn't have, but that could lead to the real restriction of liberties, (for minorities and evil slave driving whities). By looking to the government to define and enforce natural and innate rights, you open yourself up to situations like the one we saw with DADT, where they can legally determine that because of a persons sexual orientation they are unable to serve their country. By giving the government the authority to determine what is, and is not discrimination, you are, perhaps unwittingly, giving tacit approval to the idea that it is the government that determines who is or isn't a real person, with real rights.

Good points. So what confirms or belies your previous posts claiming that people can be trusted with their own better angels? That we don't need no stinkin' laws about what equality means, because most people would be inclusive to all other people? Granting teh evil gummint any sayso in these matters means......ceding powers we don't all have over ourselves?

Have you considered that we don't give the government the authority to determine what is or is not discrimination, or what are human civil rights? But that our rights are things we are born with and can't/don't need to change....our age, skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference.....and expect our laws to reflect that?

Do you want the Teabaggers and Redumblicans, (or whatever passes for a witty portmanteau now-a-days) to be able to decide who can marry? Do you want them to be able to decide who can fight in our armed services? Do you want them to be able to decide who can, or can't be served in a restaurant?

No, but it's got nothing to do with party politics. In my ideal USA, no individual would find obstacles to finding gas for their car, a restaurant or hotel, a home, or a job. And we wouldn't need laws affording protections to individuals of minority groups. But we are not there yet.

[Enoch the Red]

Sounds like you actually agree with our anti-discrimination laws, after all! But wait, you don't want to afford the right to discriminate for small business or Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs)?

I absolutely agree with anti-discrimination policies. If a company rightly decides that all customers should be treated with respect, and that treating them respect is a stipulation of employment, I would be very supportive of that. I also agree that the government should be bound, by law, to serve all citizens equally, without regard to race, sexual orientation, or religion. I believe that private entities, (that is, companies not accepting government funding) should be able to institute discriminatory policies in whatever morally bankrupt manner they choose.

How's that work in real life? Can you give an example?

When rights and liberties are derived from the government and legislation, as opposed to guaranteed by birthright, you open yourself to governmental abuse. If the government becomes capable of deciding who is or isn't fully human, in the short term it can be beneficial. You can try to force misguided people to change, or give justice to those who are being mistreated. In the long term you are allowing the government to decide who has rights, and what rights they have.

I don't need the government to tell me I'm a human being who can marry whomever I choose. I don't need it saying that because of my sexual preference I can't serve my country. I don't need it saying that I must serve bigots, racists, and misogynists in my store simply because they think they have a right to my goods or services.

Good points. So what confirms or belies your previous posts claiming that people can be trusted with their own better angels? That we don't need no stinkin' laws about what equality means, because most people would be inclusive to all other people? Granting teh evil gummint any sayso in these matters means......ceding powers we don't all have over ourselves?

Regardless of whether or not people can be trusted with their freedoms in no way invalidates those freedoms. If everyone abused the freedom of speech, I would still support it.

Have you considered that we don't give the government the authority to determine what is or is not discrimination, or what are human civil rights? But that our rights are things we are born with and can't/don't need to change....our age, skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference.....and expect our laws to reflect that?

Not only have I considered it, it's the crux of my argument!

No, but it's got nothing to do with party politics. In my ideal USA, no individual would find obstacles to finding gas for their car, a restaurant or hotel, a home, or a job. And we wouldn't need laws affording protections to individuals of minority groups. But we are not there yet.

Mine too!

If you'd like, you can be my business partner, because if we're the only ones who are open to everybody, we are going to not only be happy, we will be very wealthy.

[GGT]

I absolutely agree with anti-discrimination policies. If a company rightly decides that all customers should be treated with respect, and that treating them respect is a stipulation of employment, I would be very supportive of that. I also agree that the government should be bound, by law, to serve all citizens equally, without regard to race, sexual orientation, or religion. I believe that private entities, (that is, companies not accepting government funding) should be able to institute discriminatory policies in whatever morally bankrupt manner they choose.

Then why would you be against anti-discrimination laws? If certain private entities can still be discriminatory, why would you think our laws are infringing on private property owners---when, in reality, they DON'T?

When rights and liberties are derived from the government and legislation, as opposed to guaranteed by birthright, you open yourself to governmental abuse. If the government becomes capable of deciding who is or isn't fully human, in the short term it can be beneficial. You can try to force misguided people to change, or give justice to those who are being mistreated. In the long term you are allowing the government to decide who has rights, and what rights they have.

I think it was a good thing when our government finally decided that blacks weren't simply 3/5 of a human, and women had the right to vote.

I don't need the government to tell me I'm a human being who can marry whomever I choose. I don't need it saying that because of my sexual preference I can't serve my country. I don't need it saying that I must serve bigots, racists, and misogynists in my store simply because they think they have a right to my goods or services.

Is that because of cultural changes or legislative changes? Does the causative factor matter most?

Regardless of whether or not people can be trusted with their freedoms in no way invalidates those freedoms. If everyone abused the freedom of speech, I would still support it.
Not only have I considered it, it's the crux of my argument!
Mine too!

But we're not talking about just you and I and our more perfect union.

If you'd like, you can be my business partner, because if we're the only ones who are open to everybody, we are going to not only be happy, we will be very wealthy.

We'd be great business partners, for sure! We might even spend numerous hours in the conference room, debating about whether civil rights should make money, or if it loses money would it be worth the fight.

[Enoch the Red]

Then why would you be against anti-discrimination laws? If certain private entities can still be discriminatory, why would you think our laws are infringing on private property owners---when, in reality, they DON'T?

Because all private entities should be able to be discriminatory?

I think it was a good thing when our government finally decided that blacks weren't simply 3/5 of a human, and women had the right to vote.

I think it's something the government should have never had any say in. It's like asking the government to mandate whether or not the sky is blue. We aren't human because the government says so.

Is that because of cultural changes or legislative changes? Does the causative factor matter most?

Chicken, egg, meet page 4.

But we're not talking about just you and I and our more perfect union.

We don't have to be, because, and I mean no offense by this, I don't think you and I are particularly special. Rational humans can come to rational conclusions.

We'd be great business partners, for sure! We might even spend numerous hours in the conference room, debating about whether civil rights should make money, or if it loses money would it be worth the fight.

Honestly, probably more talking than selling.

[GGT]

Because all private entities should be able to be discriminatory?

Did I say that? Or did I just outline to Draco how that can still be accomplished in the US of A?

I think it's something the government should have never had any say in. It's like asking the government to mandate whether or not the sky is blue. We aren't human because the government says so.

But part of being human is our fallibility. Our trust in experts or academics assuages our laymen faults or worries. While we're busy raising babies and working jobs, we want our human needs to be tended to....some government agency to alert us if Chinese toys are coated in lead, or our baby cribs have faulty rails that can strangle, or car seats that don't work in the Latch and Catch program.

Chicken, egg, meet page 4.

We don't have to be, because, and I mean no offense by this, I don't think you and I are particularly special. Rational humans can come to rational conclusions.

Honestly, probably more talking than selling.

I appreciate your sentiments, I really do. But I maintain that NO person can keep up with every goddamm thing, when everything changes so fast. That's when we turn to professionals, and those very professionals refer us to a .gov or .edu website.

[Enoch the Red]

Did I say that? Or did I just outline to Draco how that can still be accomplished in the US of A?

Sure, except you think they should have to jump through regulatory hoops, and I think that by nature, private property is sacrosanct.

Everything else is seemingly dealing with the price of tea in China.

[GGT]

Sure, except you think they should have to jump through regulatory hoops, and I think that by nature, private property is sacrosanct.

Everything else is seemingly dealing with the price of tea in China.

Teatime again?

You may believe that private property is sacrosanct, and I may understand those beliefs. But that may not translate to our reality of a rapidly changing inter-connected world.

If a majority of US land/property is eventually owned by foreign investors , would you still be espousing private property rights? Or would you advocate for the minority that doesn't own any property?

[earthJoker]

Sure, except you think they should have to jump through regulatory hoops, and I think that by nature, private property is sacrosanct.

Property is by nature a human concept which can't have any attributes "by nature".

[GGT]

Property is by nature a human concept which can't have any attributes "by nature".

Well done. Now, what do you say about human concepts like civil rights?

[earthJoker]

They are a human achievement that need to prove themselves every day. If you believe they are right, by means and cause, you don't have to rely on sacrosanct axioms.

[GGT]

They are a human achievement that need to prove themselves every day. If you believe they are right, by means and cause, you don't have to rely on sacrosanct axioms.

Language barriers? I'm not sure what you mean about civil rights. Sounds like you are saying that civil rights are a human concept that needs to be proven every day. Day after day.

[earthJoker]

Well, yes. It doesn't need to be proven day by day that they are a human concept. But their "correctness" "rightness" whatever you want to call it, is something that is not given "by nature" but by consensus.

[GGT]

Well, yes. It doesn't need to be proven day by day that they are a human concept. But their "correctness" "rightness" whatever you want to call it, is something that is not given "by nature" but by consensus.

More clarification is needed, to make sure it's not a language barrier.

One of our US constitutional premises is that All People Are Equal, not because the government says so, but because that's part of our inalienable rights, things we are born with.

I'm not sure what you mean by giving something by consensus.

[earthJoker]

Well the Swiss constitution is voted by the people. It can be changed by the people (and the majority of the people of the states), every single letter of it.

Edit: One a second thought, it doesn't matter if the constitution is voted by poll or with ones feet. There is a consensus in America about rightfulness of the constitution in general.

[GGT]

Well the Swiss constitution is voted by the people. It can be changed by the people (and the majority of the people of the states), every single letter of it.

Edit: One a second thought, it doesn't matter if the constitution is voted by poll or with ones feet. There is a consensus in America about rightfulness of the constitution in general.

You are a small nation, while the USA is 300 million people over 50 states. Even a "liberal" state like California had a referendum vote against same-sex marriage. It was Proposition 8 (or Proposition H-8) We still have states that can vote for or against civil rights, which is kind of frightening if you ask me.

[earthJoker]

Well as I said in the edit, even if you don't vote for it, it's hard to uphold something over time that meets large disagreement. And I totally disagree with your statement "you are born with it". It's the society/government that provides you those rights. Simply and alone by the fact, that if there is no government, no-one will enforce your rights. A law/right/duty that is not enforced is nil and nothing.

So lets go back to property rights. Who enforces those? Damn right, the government. The only right that exists on its own is the right of the stronger.

[GGT]

Well as I said in the edit, even if you don't vote for it, it's hard to uphold something over time that meets large disagreement. And I totally disagree with your statement "you are born with it". It's the society/government that provides you those rights. Simply and alone by the fact, that if there is no government, no-one will enforce your rights. A law/right/duty that is not enforced is nil and nothing.

So lets go back to property rights. Who enforces those? Damn right, the government. The only right that exists on its own is the right of the stronger.

We are born a certain race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation. Those are not things we can change, or should feel compelled to change. We enter the world as we are, without choice of parents or genes, let alone economic status or heritage, or what country we're born in or which language we learn first.....that's why civil rights aren't something to be voted upon by the majority.