I don’t see the two as the same thing either killerDIRK. You’re a paid civil servant not a private small business owner.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I have zero problem with this law. I have zero problem with discrimination in general, when it comes from private citizens.
If someone wants to bar blacks or Jews or whatever from their business, so be it. I’d prefer to know exactly who all the racists and bigots are so I can avoid giving them my business. All of these laws that outlaw discrimination make it easier for those people to operate in the shadows. Shit, I don’t even have a problem with some baker flying an ISIS flag outside of his shop. Now I know exactly where NOT to get some pastries and coffee.
On top of all that, the business or organization is someone’s property. Let them dispose of their property however they want. There is no natural right to the purchase of someone else’s property, so discrimination is not an inherent violation of anything other than political law. If a business owner is forced to allow a black patron in his store and accept his legal tender in exchange for a good, that business owner is essentially being forced to make a transaction he wouldn’t normally make, which removes the possibility for an economic gain.
In the free market of ideas, I’d like to think that the good ones will rise to the surface and the bad ideas will never gain traction.[/quote]
Amazingly, this is exactly how I feel about the situation. I’ve always thought that civil rights laws do little but keep racists/sexists in business. I’d much rather they stay racist and get put out of business.[/quote]
I agree with this in 2015. I think some of these laws certainly had their time and place in the past though.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I have zero problem with this law. I have zero problem with discrimination in general, when it comes from private citizens.
If someone wants to bar blacks or Jews or whatever from their business, so be it. I’d prefer to know exactly who all the racists and bigots are so I can avoid giving them my business. All of these laws that outlaw discrimination make it easier for those people to operate in the shadows. Shit, I don’t even have a problem with some baker flying an ISIS flag outside of his shop. Now I know exactly where NOT to get some pastries and coffee.
On top of all that, the business or organization is someone’s property. Let them dispose of their property however they want. There is no natural right to the purchase of someone else’s property, so discrimination is not an inherent violation of anything other than political law. If a business owner is forced to allow a black patron in his store and accept his legal tender in exchange for a good, that business owner is essentially being forced to make a transaction he wouldn’t normally make, which removes the possibility for an economic gain.
In the free market of ideas, I’d like to think that the good ones will rise to the surface and the bad ideas will never gain traction.[/quote]
Amazingly, this is exactly how I feel about the situation. I’ve always thought that civil rights laws do little but keep racists/sexists in business. I’d much rather they stay racist and get put out of business.[/quote]
I agree with this in 2015. I think some of these laws certainly had their time and place in the past though. [/quote]
For the record, I’m not talking about all civil right law, just the forced integration of private business, est. Law, public property, public services, est were all necessary. I’d much rather the racist business owner loose his store and have someone else take over and run it than to pass a law forcing him to get with the program and stay in business.
The strange thing, to me, is that members of any protected group welcome the state forcing others to serve them. The underlying premise of such laws is, obviously, “Blacks/Gays/etc. can’t provide for themselves, so we must ensure that others provide for them.”
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The strange thing, to me, is that members of any protected group welcome the state forcing others to serve them. The underlying premise of such laws is, obviously, “Blacks/Gays/etc. can’t provide for themselves, so we must ensure that others provide for them.”[/quote]
You can also look at it as protecting the right of a minority to give money to the exact bigots who hate them. If there were a bakery out there that hated white guys, I would want to NOT do business with them. I wouldn’t want to push a law that would make them accept my money.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The strange thing, to me, is that members of any protected group welcome the state forcing others to serve them. The underlying premise of such laws is, obviously, “Blacks/Gays/etc. can’t provide for themselves, so we must ensure that others provide for them.”[/quote]
You’re not kidding, check out how SAT scores were “adjusted” according to ethnicity, giving certain groups “help” while punishing others…
"Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term â??bonusâ?? to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.
African Americans received a â??bonusâ?? of 230 points, Lee says.
Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points â?? in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission."
This shit is disgraceful.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Provide me with an example that shows my way of thinking to be flawed. I do not claim that bad speech will be eradicated from existence, only that it will be outweighed and in more “demand” than the bad speech.[/quote]
Hitler. I think most of us here would agree that he had some terrible ideas, but he became hugely popular and gained great power anyways.
Or, for the conservative folks here, Obama. Apparently enough people in the U.S. agree with his ideology to vote him into office, twice.
Point being- a good idea is not necessarily a popular one, and there is no guarantee that good ideas will win over bad ones.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Provide me with an example that shows my way of thinking to be flawed. I do not claim that bad speech will be eradicated from existence, only that it will be outweighed and in more “demand” than the bad speech.[/quote]
Hitler. I think most of us here would agree that he had some terrible ideas, but he became hugely popular and gained great power anyways.
Or, for the conservative folks here, Obama. Apparently enough people in the U.S. agree with his ideology to vote him into office, twice.
Point being- a good idea is not necessarily a popular one, and there is no guarantee that good ideas will win over bad ones.[/quote]
Hitler was never very popular.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The strange thing, to me, is that members of any protected group welcome the state forcing others to serve them. The underlying premise of such laws is, obviously, “Blacks/Gays/etc. can’t provide for themselves, so we must ensure that others provide for them.”[/quote]
You’re not kidding, check out how SAT scores were “adjusted” according to ethnicity, giving certain groups “help” while punishing others…
"Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term â??bonusâ?? to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.
African Americans received a â??bonusâ?? of 230 points, Lee says.
Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points â?? in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission."
This shit is disgraceful. [/quote]
The really bad part is that this actually is really bad for everyone involved. It is actually far better statistically to go to the right school than to go to the best school. Being toward the top of a bad school brings better success in life than being behind the curve at a better school.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
So being Queer, if someone does not want my business, so be it.
Will be interesting though as a non paid first responder when I come across an accident , and ask that person their religion and they respond “christian” how I am going to say…Oh well to bad, guess god had other plans for you than for me to help you.
The law of unintended consequences is and will surely play out interestingly here.
[/quote]
So let me see if I understand you correctly.
Person A belongs to church X and refuses services to person B based on Y. You are also Y, therefore you will allow anyone associated with church X die in front of you, even though you can save them, because church X allows someone like Person A into their fold, even though, Person A isn’t necessarily a representation of all the people in church X?
To shorten it, you will now discriminate against anyone in a particular group, based on the actions of certain individuals from that group, by projecting the actions of the individuals on the whole?
I mean, aside from the high school tit for tat approach to this, that is the most illogical thing I’ve read all day, but the day is young. It’s like when feminist call to end the “mistreatment” of women by making men subordinate to them…
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Its like that stand your ground law. You can pick a fight, kill someone, and say you were acting in self defense. AFTER PICKING A FIGHT.
[/quote]
Not even remotely close to true. Like this the very opposite of the truth.
Getting off track; Who gets the most government money for college, and who gets the biggest SAT score bonus? Is there some kind of connection? Some kind of SAT/University conspiracy to get more unqualified kids into school so more PELL Grants can be gathered up?
Higher education is changing into an industry set up to get tax dollars.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Why do you keep bringing up sexual orientation? Same sex marriage does not have to imply they are gay. The bakery is refusing only based on the event which is their choice, not the sexual orientation of the customer.[/quote]
Because in the cases that have actually gone to court and the businesses have lost, gay customers were refused service for services related to gay weddings: florists, photographers, wedding chapels and bakeries are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head. In the one article, it was simply a doctor who refused service for a baby because the parents are gay.
In any case, in those cases that have gone to court, the businesses were taken to court by the states for refusing service to customers based on public accommodation laws that prohibit discriminate based on sexual orientation. It likely all comes down to the exact circumstances surrounding the transaction and the wording of the law in the states.
[/quote]
For the marriage cases are you 100% sure they would have sold their product to two straight men who planned on getting married for some reason? If not don’t you think these businesses were wrongly accused of discrimination?
Back to the Bakery
Was there ever any law-suit or any use of the judicial system in any way? No judges tried to force them to make the cake, nobody sued the bakery. No one tried to force the bakery out of business. Nobody in any sort of “position of authority” took any stance on this situation. There was no court case?
Business actually INCREASED at the bakery because of the controversy. They were still making a profit when they decided to close the doors.
No one challenged the RIGHT of the bakers not to make the cake, people were just sad that the bakery in the gay neighborhood wouldn’t make it.
So what are we arguing about?
What is this law for?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For the marriage cases are you 100% sure they would have sold their product to two straight men who planned on getting married for some reason? If not don’t you think these businesses were wrongly accused of discrimination?
[/quote]
No, I don’t know the circumstances so I have no idea how the bakery would have reacted.
I stated that I do not support these laws, so I don’t know why you guys keep asking me to clarify how the state would proceed with a discrimination suit in all of these hypothetical, far flung examples.
More than likely, if they refused service, the state would probably have gone after them for refusing service based on sexual orientation, but in the cases in question it was actually gay couples who were shopping for their cakes and were denied service. That having been said, even though I’m not a lawyer, I can’t really answer the question without reading the text of the law in the state in question and then trying to decide if the state would win the case against the bakery. Even then, that doesn’t mean a judge or a defense attorney couldn’t contrive a way to convince a court to rule otherwise. This is, however, exactly why cases about the same exact law can have differing outcomes based on the specific details of the circumstance in question.
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Getting off track; Who gets the most government money for college, and who gets the biggest SAT score bonus? Is there some kind of connection? Some kind of SAT/University conspiracy to get more unqualified kids into school so more PELL Grants can be gathered up?
Higher education is changing into an industry set up to get tax dollars.
[/quote]
What’s more interesting is how government got involved with college debt, in the name of “it’s for the children,” only to get a piece of the action.
Obama Student Loan Policy Reaping $51 Billion Profit
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Back to the Bakery
Was there ever any law-suit or any use of the judicial system in any way? No judges tried to force them to make the cake, nobody sued the bakery. No one tried to force the bakery out of business. Nobody in any sort of “position of authority” took any stance on this situation. There was no court case?
Business actually INCREASED at the bakery because of the controversy. They were still making a profit when they decided to close the doors.
No one challenged the RIGHT of the bakers not to make the cake, people were just sad that the bakery in the gay neighborhood wouldn’t make it.
So what are we arguing about?
What is this law for?
[/quote]
Yes, Google is your friend.
There are national cases all over the country in states that have some sort of public accommodation laws that prohibit discrimination against gays or gay weddings by private sector business establishments. This is becoming a major legal fight in some of those states. Most of the cases involve certain business proprietors refusing to perform services related to same-sex weddings, although there are a few isolated cases that are more extreme whereby someone simply doesn’t want to serve gay customers period.
http://www.abcfoxmontana.com/story/26879803/hitching-post-lawsuit-gains-national-attention
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Getting off track; Who gets the most government money for college, and who gets the biggest SAT score bonus? Is there some kind of connection? Some kind of SAT/University conspiracy to get more unqualified kids into school so more PELL Grants can be gathered up?
Higher education is changing into an industry set up to get tax dollars.
[/quote]
I think what you brought up about Pell grants is more along the lines of an unintended consequence than anything else. I believe Pell grants are just a means for folks with less to pay for school. I don’t think it has anything to do with acceptance requirements. Although, requirements could of been reduced to accept more students using Pell grants. That I don’t know.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For the marriage cases are you 100% sure they would have sold their product to two straight men who planned on getting married for some reason? If not don’t you think these businesses were wrongly accused of discrimination?
[/quote]
No, I don’t know the circumstances so I have no idea how the bakery would have reacted.
I stated that I do not support these laws, so I don’t know why you guys keep asking me to clarify how the state would proceed with a discrimination suit in all of these hypothetical, far flung examples.
[/quote]
Some of your posts implied you supported them. I assume your mostly in favor of the Indiana religious freedom act (at least in concept) then since its directly in response to preventing fallacious discrimination lawsuits exactly like the one I mentioned above.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Some of your posts implied you supported them. I assume your mostly in favor of the Indiana religious freedom act (at least in concept) then since its directly in response to preventing fallacious discrimination lawsuits exactly like the one I mentioned above.[/quote]
No, I’ve stated multiple times that I believe private businesses should be able to serve whomever they wish. We’ve debated this topic before on other threads, and my position has been the same, from a libertarian perspective.
I was just clarifying why businesses have been taken to court at the state level, and whenever the argument comes up, some people cite examples that in my opinion are not congruous. My explanations for how the businesses (bakeries) ran afoul of the state laws shouldn’t be assumed to be support for the concepts that the laws are trying to promote (mandatory equality in public accommodations in respect to privately owned businesses and their customers in a ‘public’ marketplace).
I haven’t read the actual text of the Indiana bill, so I don’t have an opinion on that issue.
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Getting off track; Who gets the most government money for college, and who gets the biggest SAT score bonus? Is there some kind of connection? Some kind of SAT/University conspiracy to get more unqualified kids into school so more PELL Grants can be gathered up?
Higher education is changing into an industry set up to get tax dollars.
[/quote]
Dude. The argument you’re using right now is scarily reminiscent of how feminists and minority-rights people argue.
It’s just the exact opposite subject matter.