Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[AVG-JOE]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

 

[dblack]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Says you. And I'm not interested in arguing your personal opinion. I'll stick with the law.

Well, stick a fork in it then. We're all on here discussing our opinions. Again, why are you participating in the thread? Just to tell people to 'sit down and shut up'?

 

[Skylar]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

 

[dblack]

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Exactly. We're trying to use government to outlaw unpopular attitudes.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Says you. And I'm not interested in arguing your personal opinion. I'll stick with the law.

Well, stick a fork in it then. We're all on here discussing our opinions. Again, why are you participating in the thread? Just to tell people to 'sit down and shut up'?

I tend toward more objective standards. In matters of opinion, they're no leviathan. Anyone's opinion has the same functional value as anyone else's. In matters of law, there is a leviathan: legal statutes and case law. And the opinion of say the SCOTUS is functionally and qualitiatively of more value than some random guy on the internet.

Thus, when discussing the law, I use the standards of law.

 

[dblack]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

Agreed. It's not impossible. But do we really want a government with the power to dictate our thoughts?

 

[dblack]

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Says you. And I'm not interested in arguing your personal opinion. I'll stick with the law.

Well, stick a fork in it then. We're all on here discussing our opinions. Again, why are you participating in the thread? Just to tell people to 'sit down and shut up'?

I tend toward more objective standards. In matters of opinion, they're no leviathan. Anyone's opinion has the same functional value as anyone else's. In matters of law, there is a leviathan: legal statutes and case law. And the opinion of say the SCOTUS is functionally and qualitiatively of more value than some random guy on the internet.

Thus, when discussing the law, I use the standards of law.

Yeah.. I don't care. I'm not here to debate what is legal and what is not. I'm discussing the merits and principles of those laws - whether they're worth having in the first place. If that doesn't interest you, fine. I'm equally bored with tedious readings of case law. To each his own, eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

Constitutionally, yes, in some cases in public.

 

[Skylar]

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Says you. And I'm not interested in arguing your personal opinion. I'll stick with the law.

Well, stick a fork in it then. We're all on here discussing our opinions. Again, why are you participating in the thread? Just to tell people to 'sit down and shut up'?

I tend toward more objective standards. In matters of opinion, they're no leviathan. Anyone's opinion has the same functional value as anyone else's. In matters of law, there is a leviathan: legal statutes and case law. And the opinion of say the SCOTUS is functionally and qualitiatively of more value than some random guy on the internet.

Thus, when discussing the law, I use the standards of law.

Yeah.. I don't care. I'm not here to debate what is legal and what is not. I'm discussing the merits and principles of those laws - whether they're worth having in the first place. If that doesn't interest you, fine. I'm equally bored with tedious readings of case law. To each his own, eh?

Then you and I are discussing apples and oranges. You want to discuss your personal opinion of what the law should be. I'm discussing what the law is.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

Can a society that claims it cherishes freedom of thought really regulate the desire to put hot lead between the eyes of some prick who desperately deserves it?

For my thoughts to truly be my own, mustn't society draw a line at the threat of punishment for acting on those desires?

Average Saying # 88: "The Authorities" have no business inside my head.
​

 

[Skylar]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

Can a society that claims it cherishes freedom of thought really regulate the desire to put hot lead between the eyes of some prick who desperately deserves it?

PA laws don't regulate 'desires'. They regulate actions. And yes, you can definitely regulate action. A person can DESIRE to discriminate against gays. But until they actual deny services, they've violated no laws.

 

[dblack]

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Says you. And I'm not interested in arguing your personal opinion. I'll stick with the law.

Well, stick a fork in it then. We're all on here discussing our opinions. Again, why are you participating in the thread? Just to tell people to 'sit down and shut up'?

I tend toward more objective standards. In matters of opinion, they're no leviathan. Anyone's opinion has the same functional value as anyone else's. In matters of law, there is a leviathan: legal statutes and case law. And the opinion of say the SCOTUS is functionally and qualitiatively of more value than some random guy on the internet.

Thus, when discussing the law, I use the standards of law.

Yeah.. I don't care. I'm not here to debate what is legal and what is not. I'm discussing the merits and principles of those laws - whether they're worth having in the first place. If that doesn't interest you, fine. I'm equally bored with tedious readings of case law. To each his own, eh?

Then you and I are discussing apples and oranges. You want to discuss your personal opinion of what the law should be. I'm discussing what the law is.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Says you. And I'm not interested in arguing your personal opinion. I'll stick with the law.

Well, stick a fork in it then. We're all on here discussing our opinions. Again, why are you participating in the thread? Just to tell people to 'sit down and shut up'?

I tend toward more objective standards. In matters of opinion, they're no leviathan. Anyone's opinion has the same functional value as anyone else's. In matters of law, there is a leviathan: legal statutes and case law. And the opinion of say the SCOTUS is functionally and qualitiatively of more value than some random guy on the internet.

Thus, when discussing the law, I use the standards of law.

Yeah.. I don't care. I'm not here to debate what is legal and what is not. I'm discussing the merits and principles of those laws - whether they're worth having in the first place. If that doesn't interest you, fine. I'm equally bored with tedious readings of case law. To each his own, eh?

Then you and I are discussing apples and oranges. You want to discuss your personal opinion of what the law should be. I'm discussing what the law is.

You're also complaining because people are discussing oranges.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

Can a society that claims it cherishes freedom of thought really regulate the desire to put hot lead between the eyes of some prick who desperately deserves it?

PA laws don't regulate 'desires'. They regulate actions. And yes, you can definitely regulate action. A person can DESIRE to discriminate against gays. But until they actual deny services, they've violated no laws.

Well there you go!

We agree.

Beer?

 

[dblack]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

Can a society that claims it cherishes freedom of thought really regulate the desire to put hot lead between the eyes of some prick who desperately deserves it?

PA laws don't regulate 'desires'. They regulate actions. And yes, you can definitely regulate action. A person can DESIRE to discriminate against gays. But until they actual deny services, they've violated no laws.

That's flatly untrue. What makes the act of refusing service to someone illegal is the reason for doing so.

 

[Skylar]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

Can a society that claims it cherishes freedom of thought really regulate the desire to put hot lead between the eyes of some prick who desperately deserves it?

PA laws don't regulate 'desires'. They regulate actions. And yes, you can definitely regulate action. A person can DESIRE to discriminate against gays. But until they actual deny services, they've violated no laws.

That's flatly untrue. What makes the act of refusing service to someone illegal is the reason for doing so.

The desire without an act violates no law. Which is exactly my point. You can desire whatever you want. When you act on that desire, you can be held accountable to the law.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Exactly. We're trying to use government to outlaw unpopular attitudes.

Education is the proper tool to wield... not criminal justice.

America's culture wars over religion are almost as stupid as the war on drugs.

The good news is that the Sunni's and the Shiite's are going to go down in history as the bloodiest religious bullshit for our collective point on the Monkey Timeline.

There is that ​

 

[dblack]

Of course we discriminate!

Our entire Monkey lives are completely wound around making discriminating judgement decision after discriminating judgement decision.

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Monkeys need to focus on regulating Monkey behavior and educating Monkey spawn...

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

Can a society that claims it cherishes freedom of thought really regulate the desire to put hot lead between the eyes of some prick who desperately deserves it?

PA laws don't regulate 'desires'. They regulate actions. And yes, you can definitely regulate action. A person can DESIRE to discriminate against gays. But until they actual deny services, they've violated no laws.

That's flatly untrue. What makes the act of refusing service to someone illegal is the reason for doing so.

The desire without an act violates no law. Which is exactly my point. You can desire whatever you want. When you act on that desire, you can be held accountable to the law.

The act without the desire violates no law. Which is exactly my point. It is the desire that makes the act illegal, the thoughts and opinion of a person refusing to serve someone they don't like. The point is that PA laws aren't protecting a universal right to be treated equally, they're targeting unpopular biases for suppression.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"The act without the desire violates no law."

Huh?
​

It's BEHAVIOR alone that should determine violations of the law.

We can think whatever we like... just don't kill, steal, rape, pillage, plunder, etc., or expect to have a chat with Johnny Law.

 

[dblack]

"The act without the desire violates no law."

Huh?
​

It's BEHAVIOR alone that should determine violations of the law.

Exactly. And that's not what these laws do. It's not the act of refusing to serve someone that is illegal. It's refusing to serve them for reasons the state doesn't approve of.

 

[Skylar]

They're not impossible to regulate at all. They're difficult to regulate. As you have to infer motivation. But this isn't impossible either.

Can a society that claims it cherishes freedom of thought really regulate the desire to put hot lead between the eyes of some prick who desperately deserves it?

PA laws don't regulate 'desires'. They regulate actions. And yes, you can definitely regulate action. A person can DESIRE to discriminate against gays. But until they actual deny services, they've violated no laws.

That's flatly untrue. What makes the act of refusing service to someone illegal is the reason for doing so.

The desire without an act violates no law. Which is exactly my point. You can desire whatever you want. When you act on that desire, you can be held accountable to the law.

The act without the desire violates no law. Which is exactly my point.

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.