Freedom - ? (2 Viewers)

[Libre]

Perhaps we are both a bit more narrow minded than we care to admit. You jumped right into the thread with a wise crack instead of offering a resonable response like mile-o. I'm guessing I probably gored your sacred cow, like maybe you are gay?

The fact that you don't understand my sense of humor, and/or are unable to answer the questions I raised, does not mean that I was not making a point or responding reasonably.
As far as "wise cracks", you seem to do so quite a lot - like in your very first post to me ever, in the evolution thread.
So I thought you liked wise cracks - it's just that mine are funnier.
As far as being gay, well, not that it's anybody's business, but I'm not. I have no reason to deny it - I'm just being truthful.
I was expecting you to take that homophobic shot at me, Ken.
I mean, why would ANYBODY defend gay people unless they were gay themselves - is that about right Ken?

 

[Frothingslosh]

I recall that the book was published by a publishing house in Boston. No idea about the writer, but if you go back and read articles and works written by Americans of the period, there really was a wide-spread demonization of the Natives by white Americans. I'm certain more of it sprang from fear, rumors, and lack of understanding than malevolence (never attribute to malevolance that which can be adequately explained by stupidity), but there definitely was ill-intent involved too by people with something to gain from the displacement or death of the Natives.

And honestly, the book was brought up as an example of the mindset rather than 'these people are heinous'. It was part of the point that, given free reign, Americans (and you're right, people in general) will always discriminate against those who are different.

And I may not - I dislike the man who killed my mother, but I don't hate him. Nor do I hate the man who stole my father's business from him when I was a child, although him too I dislike intensely.

 

[KenHigg]

So I thought you liked wise cracks - it's just that mine are funnier.

Fair enough about my own wise cracks. You do seem to have a high opinon of your humor - ?

And, seems resonable that a gay person would be a more staunch advocate than normal person. I see no harm asking - ?

 

[KenHigg]

I recall that the book was published by a publishing house in Boston. No idea about the writer, but if you go back and read articles and works written by Americans of the period, there really was a wide-spread demonization of the Natives by white Americans. I'm certain more of it sprang from fear, rumors, and lack of understanding than malevolence (never attribute to malevolance that which can be adequately explained by stupidity), but there definitely was ill-intent involved too by people with something to gain from the displacement or death of the Natives.

And honestly, the book was brought up as an example of the mindset rather than 'these people are heinous'. It was part of the point that, given free reign, Americans (and you're right, people in general) will always discriminate against those who are different.

And I may not - I dislike the man who killed my mother, but I don't hate him. Nor do I hate the man who stole my father's business from him when I was a child, although him too I dislike intensely.

Sorry about your Mother -

 

[Frothingslosh]

Sorry about your Mother -

No worries, it happened in 1972.

 

[drybone]

IMO, both parties involved are wrong. Thomas Jefferson said it best "The tyranny of the majority over the minority is implicit in democracy." You put them out of business by not supporting their products. If enough people don't agree with their policies they won't make enough money and would be forced to change or close up shop. Economics, not government policy should dictate a climate of change. On the other hand, if enough people do support them... you should take your business where it is appreciated. In my personal experiences, no amount of legislation can cure unlawful discrimination. Look at affirmative action, most look at it as counter productive to both sides. On one hand you potentially legitimize a cap for hiring certain groups of people and on the other hand you potentially overlook a more qualified person for the job do to hiring quota's. Peaceful activism and change doesn't require a need to hold a seat in congress.

 

[Vassago]

Now that the thought of having this discussion again for the umpteenth time doesn't make me want to scream, let me try this again.



Yes, it really is. How about if they decide they won't serve black folks? What about women?

"No Mexicans allowed"?
"No Catholics allowed"?
"No cripples allowed"?
"No Jews/Atheists/Muslims allowed"?

You claim people will show their dislike by not patronizing the store, yet at the same time the Right whines about the 'Leftist tyranny' when people call for boycotts. (Mind you, these same conservatives aren't shy about calling for pro-LGBT businesses to be shut down.)

If you allow business to discriminate based on irrational hatred of a group, you will wind up with us going back to the 50's, with 'No negroes' signs everywhere, except it'll start with 'no queers' rather than 'no negroes'. The hatred of blacks wouldn't take long to re-surface, however, and then it would be just like the 50's again. Anyone who says racism is dead in America is either lying or clueless. When I lived in Virginia, people badmouthed "niggers" openly and constantly, and I ran into the same during my unfortunate period working in Atlanta. Hell, my own family here in Michigan, with only 3 exceptions, hate black people with a passion, and the sentiment is very widespread in the town where I grew up - which is ten miles from Pontiac and maybe 25 from Detroit.

Allowing people to legally discriminate solely based on bigotry will inevitably result in us backsliding to the pre-Civil Rights era tyranny of the minority by the majority.

And honestly, if that isn't enough to sway you, and you still fall back on "rights", let me point out that the entire "why can't I pick and choose who I sell to" argument is based on the flawed argument that store-owner rights are more important than customer rights. If you argue you have the right to sell to only those who meet your birth standards, does the customer not have the right to expect equal treatment and service? Do they not have the right to shop where they want without someone deciding they don't deserve to purchase a hot dog because they have the wrong color skin or are holding the hand of the wrong sex?

It's important to keep in mind that Americans have proven through our history that given the chance to discriminate, we WILL turn unpopular minorities into second-class citizens through disenfranchisement (both as citizens and people) as well as terror.

As a private business, they already have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, without a reason given. Do you think this isn't already happening because of someone's color, sex, gender identification, sexual perference, religious preference, appearance, etc...? The point is, we don't need more laws for this because a private business already has this right.

We do have laws for discrimination, but it's really as simple as not giving a reason.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I don't deny that this is already happening.

The argument Ken posted is really just asking "Why shouldn't I be allowed to refuse service to people for being gay?". As with being black, hispanic, female, elderly, or many other reasons, it's not something you can control. UNLIKE the above, it is not officially considered a protected class nationally, and the question is direct pushback against sexual orientation being added to the protected classes.

Whether it happens already or not is irrelevant - a diner owner may refuse to seat anyone he sees fit, but if it becomes apparent he is refusing to seat every black person who enters (or even just mostly blacks), he is going to be hammered by anti-discrimination law. Why shouldn't sexual orientation fall under the same category, as you have just as much choice?

Unless you feel those laws need to be repealed? After all, the gay man walking through the door had as much choice in being gay as the black man did in being black. Should it be considered perfectly fine to place that 'No Negroes' sign as so many businesses did sixty years ago? As I asked earlier, what about 'No Women', 'No Jews', or 'No Seniors'? Where should the law be drawn on who gets excluded from society and who is accepted? Today, we try to draw the line at your actions, not your birth, but this argument of yours and Kens attempts to move the line back to your birth primarily determining where you are allowed to go and what you're allowed to do.

Much of the advancement of humanity, especially during and since the Enlightenment, consists of people finally saying 'No more!' to barbarism, and, unfortunately, dragging those who insist on remaining barbaric into civilization.

Edit: AARGH I just can't get that last paragraph worded correctly!

 

[Frothingslosh]

Here's a question for you:

Questions like those in the original post - "Why can't a business sell to/refuse service to whomever they wish?" - are a direct pushback against things like bakeries getting hammered by certain states and/or municipalities for refusing service to LGBT couples in violation of anti-discrimination statutes. That was even brought up in this discussion.

People are defending them by saying that these bakeries have the right to refuse service to anyone, and they shouldn't be punished by the state for it.

So my question for you is this: Had these bakeries refused service because the couples were black rather than gay, and had they still been fined (and possibly charged) for violating anti-discrimination laws, would you still be defending them, and why or why not?

 

[KenHigg]

I would say they were wrong (possibly) but the gov shouldn't enforce anykind of law against them. Then I would open a store up next to them and I wouldn't refuse to sell to them because of the color of their skin -

 

[Vassago]

I would say they were wrong (possibly) but the gov shouldn't enforce anykind of law against them. Then I would open a store up next to them and I wouldn't refuse to sell to them because of the color of their skin -

Exactly!!!

I think we have too many laws as it is. I don't think you understand my point either. I don't think we need a law like this stupid law in Indiana to give a private business the right to refuse service to someone because they already have that right. If someone wants to refuse service to someone because they are black, well, more power to them. They'll likely get chased out of business.

So again, tolerance needs to be raised on both sides of this issue. For public officials, they need to realize their job as a public servant requires them to perform their duties, regardless of their own personal beliefs as required and allowed by law. After all, two people getting married has no impact on your own personal beliefs.

And someone in a private business not wanting to bake a stupid cake for you because of your orientation should be fine. Go somewhere else! They don't deserve your business anyway! There are plenty of bakeries that will help, I assure you.

The only exceptions to these rules are in obvious positions of medical and security sects where their oaths overrule their own personal beliefs. A doctor shouldn't be able to refuse to treat someone any more than a security guard refuse to protect someone because of these differences. Just like the right for a business to refuse service to anyone without reason, these rules already exist. WE DON'T NEED MORE LAWS!

It's kind of like the stupid law in Florida that restricts a public restroom use to your birth restroom. Besides the fact that this sort of rule will be impossible to really enforce (will someone be doing crotch checks at the door?), it's a non-issue. One excuse they give is that they want to protect people from being attacked in the bathroom. Guess what? There are already laws against attacking someone in the bathroom. We don't need another law for that! If someone intends to go into a restroom and attack someone, that's what they will do. Another law is not going to stop it or influence it. It's like making a law to make killing someone while dressed in drag illegal. Killing someone is already illegal. Ummm... what?

 

[Frothingslosh]

My problem with that approach, Vassago, is it doesn't work. It didn't work in 1950's Alabama, and it won't work in 2010's Indiana.

It took the National Guard to force people to stop people from officially treating blacks as less than people, and the whole idea that blatant racism will get a business shut down has really only taken hold in the last twenty or thirty years. If people hadn't been forced to accept black people into their schools and restaurants, they would still be defacto serfs - bigotry was just too widespread and too well accepted. Todays, it's gay folks reather than black folks, but the issues are the same. Hell, just look at the gay marriage thing - yes, 60% of Americans believe, in recent polls, that LGBT people should have the same marriage rights as straight people, but that just means that 40% of Americans think gay people have no right to marry; that it somehow 'defiles' holy matrimony (even if getting 5 divorces thanks to cheating every few months doesn't....).

I guess you're just more of an optimist than I. In a perfect world, what you propose would work just fine. In the world where we live, however, not so much.

 

[KenHigg]

Just because something happened in the past does not mean it will happen again - ?

It's kind of insulting when people compare the gay thing to what was happening to the blacks in the south - ?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Why, when it's basically the same thing? A group of people are being treated as second-class citizens and denied their rights due to who they are, not anything they've done, and bigots are desperately trying everything they can to prevent it.

 

[KenHigg]

Why, when it's basically the same thing? A group of people are being treated as second-class citizens and denied their rights due to who they are, not anything they've done, and bigots are desperately trying everything they can to prevent it.

Not wanting to put a moral injuction you don't agree with on a cake you bake seems worlds apart from demanding a person sit in the back of a bus because of the color of their skin - ?

 

[Libre]

Not wanting to put a moral injuction you don't agree with on a cake you bake seems worlds apart from demanding a person sit in the back of a bus because of the color of their skin - ?

They are not worlds apart; they are one and the same.
When the south didn't want to give the vote to the Black, they came up with Jim crow laws and literacy tests and poll taxes - all in the name of protecting the rights of the decent citizens from the lower illerates (the darkies).
When Texas wanted to deprive women of their reproductive rights, they made abortion clinics illegal unless they could function as a hospital - which 80% couldn't - they weren't designed that way - and closed them all, in the name of protecting women's health.
And now that Indiana and Arkensas don't want to accept Gay rights - and the God fearing, bible thumping, fire and brimstone judges keep getting overruled by higher judges, they come up with this nonsense designed to allow anyone to deprive gays (or any race or group they don't like), of their civil rights, in the name of religious freedom.
So it's all a part of the bigger thing - which is that the South still can't get over losing the Civil War, while disguising their attempts to turn back the clock to the 1850's - to throw off progressive lawmakers and the segment of the population that stands for equal rights. But they are stupid if they think WE'RE that stupid.

 

[KenHigg]

Not sure why you keep trying to give the south a black eye (no pun intended )when the issue seems to stem from Illinois?

The freedom I want is to be able to bake a cake and sell it without the gov telling me I have to put whatever the customer wants on it. Isn't that some kind of civil right violation - ? If an atheist owned a cake store and a religious person came in and wanted to have 'atheist are going to hell' on it, would the store owner have some kind of right to say he wasn't going to put that on any cake he sells?

 

[Frothingslosh]

The government has never said you must put whatever a person wants on a cake. If they asked you to put a picture of a giant donkey performing anal sex on Jesus while he gives God oral, you could (and most likely would) refuse, and be protected due to obscenity laws.

If, however, you refuse service simply because someone is black, Jewish, or gay, then you're engaged in discrimination. The government has stepped in because it is necessary, because it was proven over and over again (again, look back at the Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage movements) that society will NOT stop treating groups as second class citizens unless forced.

If you disagree with that, then I suggest you take up Constitutional Law for a career and show the court that Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas and similar decisions are, in fact, wrong.

But thank you for showing your true colors: that you believe it's perfectly acceptable to relegate people you have irrational dislikes for to a persecuted underclass.

 

[Libre]

Not sure why you keep trying to give the south a black eye (no pun intended )when the issue seems to stem from Illinois?

The freedom I want is to be able to bake a cake and sell it without the gov telling me I have to put whatever the customer wants on it. Isn't that some kind of civil right violation - ? If an atheist owned a cake store and a religious person came in and wanted to have 'atheist are going to hell' on it, would the store owner have some kind of right to say he wasn't going to put that on any cake he sells?

I don't know what this law allows and neither does the governor.
Yes, it (apparently) allows the religious freedom to refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple, yet the governor wants to put in a provision that it does not permit discrimination against gays.
This is like a sign saying:
We Welcome All People to our Establishment, We Never Discriminate, and we ABSOLUTELY NEVER Deny Service To ANYBODY Ever*!




*except Nigs, Jooze, Spics, or anyone else we decide our religion dictates we're supposed to hate and ostracize.

 

[KenHigg]

But thank you for showing your true colors: that you believe it's perfectly acceptable to relegate people you have irrational dislikes for to a persecuted underclass.

Nah, Thats not my postion at all...