Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[bripat9643]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate. And PA laws apply exclusively to businesses.

You mean "a state," not the state. The later means government in general. Perhaps that's why you confuse people about what you mean.

 

[Skylar]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate. And PA laws apply exclusively to businesses.

You mean "a state," not the state. The later means government in general. Perhaps that's why you confuse people about what you mean.

I mean States. Like California or Utah. Intrastate commerce is unquestioningly within the authority of the State to regulate. Or 'a State' if you wish.

 

[bripat9643]

... Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

Ah, so what you're REALLY saying is that people should not be allowed to own and operate a business unless you agree with how they run that business.

If you won't follow our rules, don't open the business.

The fascist motto.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate.

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

 

[bripat9643]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate. And PA laws apply exclusively to businesses.

You mean "a state," not the state. The later means government in general. Perhaps that's why you confuse people about what you mean.

I mean States. Like California or Utah. Intrastate commerce is unquestioningly within the authority of the State to regulate. Or 'a State' if you wish.

It may be Constitutional, but it's still wrong for the government to tell businesses who they must do business with.

 

[Skylar]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate.

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate.

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

Spoken like a true Nazi. Why don't you just keep your nose out of other people's business?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate.

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
I, not the state, determines what my job is and if I can or cannot do it.

 

[dblack]

I

... Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

Ah, so what you're REALLY saying is that people should not be allowed to own and operate a business unless you agree with how they run that business.

That's pretty much it, yeah. The idea is that operating a business is, essentially, a joint venture, wherein the government has a vested interested in how the business is run.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I still say we need to prosecute the lesbian who shot me down for my gender when I asked her out, all of the people who won't be my friend for various reasons, and the guy who was selling his Xbox and sold it to a fellow black guy instead of me. All of these sick, bigoted fucks need to give me all their money and go to prison for discriminating against me. Liberals, will you stay consistent and help me bring these worthless sacks of exclusivist scum down?

 

[Skylar]

You're missing the point, which is the distinction between equality under the law - ensuring that our laws don't discriminate - and equal treatment by our peers, which entails entirely different policies to enforce. Policies that, ironically, undermine equality under the law.

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate. And PA laws apply exclusively to businesses.

You mean "a state," not the state. The later means government in general. Perhaps that's why you confuse people about what you mean.

I mean States. Like California or Utah. Intrastate commerce is unquestioningly within the authority of the State to regulate. Or 'a State' if you wish.

It may be Constitutional, but it's still wrong for the government to tell businesses who they must do business with.

I disagree. Its completely reasonable for a State to require that those engaged in commerce within its boundaries to treat their customers fairly and equally. That a proprietor 'believes' they should be able to treat blacks or women or gays like shit doesn't alleviate the State's requirement for fair and equal treatment.

Commerce is the primary method by which goods and services are distributed throughout our society. Making fair access to commerce an expression of practical freedom.

 

[Skylar]

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate.

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
I, not the state, determines what my job is and if I can or cannot do it.

If you're doing business with the public and engaged in commerce in a State, the State most definitely gets a say. They can and invariably do require that you treat your customers fairly and equally. Only the extent of 'fair' and 'equal' vary from state to state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
I, not the state, determines what my job is and if I can or cannot do it.

If you're doing business with the public and engaged in commerce in a State, the State most definitely gets a say.
They can and invariably do require that you treat your customers fairly and equally. Only the extent of 'fair' and 'equal' vary from state to state.

As I said: If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
Meanwhile, our non-discriminatory "We refuse to serve anyone who supports gay marriage" sign and policy remains.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly.
All men are created equal and shall be equal in the eyes of the law and the state,.
The state has no place to force any individual to treat all people the same regardless of how they may or may lot like them, as the individual is neither the state nor the law.

In issues of commerce, the State has every authority to regulate. And PA laws apply exclusively to businesses.

You mean "a state," not the state. The later means government in general. Perhaps that's why you confuse people about what you mean.

I mean States. Like California or Utah. Intrastate commerce is unquestioningly within the authority of the State to regulate. Or 'a State' if you wish.

It may be Constitutional, but it's still wrong for the government to tell businesses who they must do business with.

I disagree. Its completely reasonable for a State to require that those engaged in commerce within its boundaries to treat their customers fairly and equally. That a proprietor 'believes' they should be able to treat blacks or women or gays like shit doesn't alleviate the State's requirement for fair and equal treatment.

Commerce is the primary method by which goods and services are distributed throughout our society. Making fair access to commerce an expression of practical freedom.

There's nothing reasonable about it. The state's only legitimate function is protecting your rights, and you have no right to be served by any business. The state is required to treat people equally, but not you and I. If I want to run a bar that excludes gays, that's my right. It's called freedom of association.

Freedom means not being compelled to so things against your will. "Practical freedom" is just a euphemism meaning "tyranny."

 

[bripat9643]

The state has no authority no authority whatsoever to regulate personal opinion or to force people to put their personal opinion aside when dealing with others.

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
I, not the state, determines what my job is and if I can or cannot do it.

If you're doing business with the public and engaged in commerce in a State, the State most definitely gets a say. They can and invariably do require that you treat your customers fairly and equally. Only the extent of 'fair' and 'equal' vary from state to state.

We know the law. The point is the law violates our rights. You don't refute that by continually citing the law.

 

[Ravi]

Hooters argued in court that they are selling women, not food.

I bet a LA nightclub wouldn't turn down Woody Allen, and it doesn't get much uglier than that.

So, would you say that the current list of protected classes covers every possible kind of discrimination? Do you really believe that?

No it doesn't but the next time a poor fat old person gets turned down for a cake, get back to me and we can address it.

What do you mean? Are you saying everyone should be protected from discrimination? That's what I was trying to get at with the OP? Is the protected classes list really trying to protect everyone, and just missing the mark? Or is it just a set aside to target certain biases?

I think PA laws cover people that are discriminated against for irrational reasons. There are some rational reasons to discriminate. Because gays or blacks or Christians make you squeamish is not a rational reason.

So, no, it wouldn't make sense to say that everyone should be protected against discrimination. Then we'd have men sleeping in tents with girl scouts and how stupid would that be?

Ok, that makes sense. That's the way I see those laws too. They're not about protecting equal rights, but squelching irrational biases. I just think government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which biases are irrational and which aren't.

Unless the government is we the people. Sigh. And again, I see it more as protecting the victims of irrational discrimination.

 

[bripat9643]

So, would you say that the current list of protected classes covers every possible kind of discrimination? Do you really believe that?

No it doesn't but the next time a poor fat old person gets turned down for a cake, get back to me and we can address it.

What do you mean? Are you saying everyone should be protected from discrimination? That's what I was trying to get at with the OP? Is the protected classes list really trying to protect everyone, and just missing the mark? Or is it just a set aside to target certain biases?

I think PA laws cover people that are discriminated against for irrational reasons. There are some rational reasons to discriminate. Because gays or blacks or Christians make you squeamish is not a rational reason.

So, no, it wouldn't make sense to say that everyone should be protected against discrimination. Then we'd have men sleeping in tents with girl scouts and how stupid would that be?

Ok, that makes sense. That's the way I see those laws too. They're not about protecting equal rights, but squelching irrational biases. I just think government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which biases are irrational and which aren't.

Unless the government is we the people. Sigh. And again, I see it more as protecting the victims of irrational discrimination.

No government is "we the people." Government is separate and distinct from the people.

 

[dblack]

PA laws don't regulate opinion.

They do when they state you must act contrary to your opinion, beliefs and conscience.

If your opinion, beliefs or conscience makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job.

If you are offended by my opinion, beliefs or conscience, find another baker.
I, not the state, determines what my job is and if I can or cannot do it.

If you're doing business with the public and engaged in commerce in a State, the State most definitely gets a say. They can and invariably do require that you treat your customers fairly and equally. Only the extent of 'fair' and 'equal' vary from state to state.

We know the law. The point is the law violates our rights. You don't refute that by continually citing the law.

But he can derail the thread and, at least try to, squelch discussion of changing the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

The bottom line for me is that the gay couple's right to have a wedding should not trump the baker's right to not participate in one. The baker was not discriminating against a person or persons. The baker was discriminating against an event in which he did not wish to participate.

There should never be a law requiring people to participate in activities or events or go to place they morally or ethically or just aesthetically object to.

Likewise the Westboro Baptists have every right to have an anniversary celebration at their church and a gay baker should have every right to decline baking cupcakes with the Westboro logo on them. And he should not have to bake a cake with an anti-gay slogan on it. Nor should he have to cater an event for a group that advocated traditional family values.

Likewise the KKK has every right to have a convention and promote whatever ideas or thought come into their white sheeted little pointy heds. But the black caterer or the gay florist or the Christian baker should have every right to choose not to participate in that event in any fashion including providing the buffet or setting up the floral displays or dessert table.

 

[lake avenue]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of fucking course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

I think the question is if somebody has been discriminated in a way that actually hurts them. If someone just walks by and calls someone a racially provocative word, that's under your free speech to do so (I think), and legally, any violence the other party uses against you is illegal (maybe provoked), but if you purposely do not hire or do not service and creed, religion, sexuality, or people who have some opinion different then yours, that does not fall under your freedom of speech.