For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[MarcATL]

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

You're talking like a kook.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[martybegan]

No. But a black person who thinks a white person is bad just because they are white is certainly a bigot, and a gay person who think someone is bad because they are straight is certainly a bigot. You make broad judgments on people you don't know and apply the label "Christian" as if it were an insult. Which makes you a bigot. Look up the definition of the word. It's about how you react, not what you react to.

Bullshit. You who want segregated businesses are the bigots. That is quite clear. You can continue trying to character assassinate me by calling ME a bigot, but it is laughable.

You want's some nails for for that cross you want to hang yourself on?

Hey, buddy! Nobody is forcing you to do anything but treat people the same. That is how we do things today. We are not going back to your 1950s utopia of discrimination and bigotry against those who are different and might have different beliefs than you. If you can't handle it, don't go into business.

Individuals have the right to preference which means NOT treating others the same.
The laws you defend are discriminatory making them contradictory. Your anti discrimination laws oppress minorities

Nope, the states have every right to make rules and regulations about how businesses operate in their jurisdiction. The rest of your post is just asinine.

religious freedom trumps that as long as there is not a compelling government interest. Live by the 14th amendment, die by the 14th amendment.

 

[martybegan]

All you have is 'the law is the law is the law". That is appeal to authority, and not a proper tool of debate.

You are making some "animals more equal than others" and you are ironically doing it in the name of equality.

The horror. If you open a business, you are expected to behave like an adult and treat all your customers the same. If you cannot do that and if you cannot abide by the law, then don't open a business. You are not being "forced" to do anything except to treat others like equal human beings. If that is too much for you to handle, then you probably should never own a business anyway. I'm glad for this law. It's a good law and I stand behind it 100%.

You are being forced to forgo a way of making a living you want to, you are able to, and have a right to do, simply because you don't want to participate in something against your moral code.

That you think everyone should be just like you to own a business is narcissistic and typical of progressives, the fact you want government to do your dirty work makes you a statist.

You are far closer to a fascist in political views that I ever will be. Congratulations.

I know. Boo-hoo. I am oppressing your right to be a douchebag. How sad for you.

The sad thing is you think that all of this is the best thing to do. Again, closer to Fascism that I ever will be.

Yup, most states have laws regarding how businesses are run in their jurisdictions. So sad that you cannot openly discriminate against other people who are different. We all know that YOU are the real victim. Just keep on trying to drive that point home!

They are the wronged party, the bakers, not me.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

A reasonable position. Thanks for adding some actual debate to the thread, as opposed to the thrashing of ChrisL on this topic.

 

[PratchettFan]

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

No. But a black person who thinks a white person is bad just because they are white is certainly a bigot, and a gay person who think someone is bad because they are straight is certainly a bigot. You make broad judgments on people you don't know and apply the label "Christian" as if it were an insult. Which makes you a bigot. Look up the definition of the word. It's about how you react, not what you react to.

Bullshit. You who want segregated businesses are the bigots. That is quite clear. You can continue trying to character assassinate me by calling ME a bigot, but it is laughable.

I understand. You're the "good guy" so the fact that you meet the definition of a bigot can't mean you are. You only hate the right people.

 

[martybegan]

So, the argument is basically this. The state has no right to set rules and regulations upon businesses. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want without state interference, including discriminate against certain (and WHOLE) sectors of our society, and that should be no biggie. We should have segregated shopping and stores. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

No, it's that the States have to take into account the religious liberty of the party in question, and weigh that against the actual harm caused to the "offended" party.

 

[ChrisL]

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

No. But a black person who thinks a white person is bad just because they are white is certainly a bigot, and a gay person who think someone is bad because they are straight is certainly a bigot. You make broad judgments on people you don't know and apply the label "Christian" as if it were an insult. Which makes you a bigot. Look up the definition of the word. It's about how you react, not what you react to.

Bullshit. You who want segregated businesses are the bigots. That is quite clear. You can continue trying to character assassinate me by calling ME a bigot, but it is laughable.

I understand. You're the "good guy" so the fact that you meet the definition of a bigot can't mean you are. You only hate the right people.

There is where you are mistaken. I don't hate anyone. I just don't have a problem with this law. It does not single out Christians, so therefore all of your objections are just bogus. The fact is that you WANT people to be able to discriminate in their business dealings with others. Well, some of us disagree and that includes the state.

 

[ChrisL]

So, the argument is basically this. The state has no right to set rules and regulations upon businesses. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want without state interference, including discriminate against certain (and WHOLE) sectors of our society, and that should be no biggie. We should have segregated shopping and stores. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

No, it's that the States have to take into account the religious liberty of the party in question, and weigh that against the actual harm caused to the "offended" party.

Your "religious liberty" doesn't give you the right to discriminate against people when it comes to conducting business.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

A reasonable position. Thanks for adding some actual debate to the thread, as opposed to the thrashing of ChrisL on this topic.

You mean the thrashing you are receiving from me. I know, I'm a bull dog and you will not win.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

You're talking like a kook.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Lots of kooks around here who think it is "their right" to treat others like second class citizens obviously.

 

[martybegan]

So, the argument is basically this. The state has no right to set rules and regulations upon businesses. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want without state interference, including discriminate against certain (and WHOLE) sectors of our society, and that should be no biggie. We should have segregated shopping and stores. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

No, it's that the States have to take into account the religious liberty of the party in question, and weigh that against the actual harm caused to the "offended" party.

Your "religious liberty" doesn't give you the right to discriminate against people when it comes to conducting business.

Says you. why does one liberty override the other, especially when no harm is done to one side?

 

[martybegan]

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

A reasonable position. Thanks for adding some actual debate to the thread, as opposed to the thrashing of ChrisL on this topic.

You mean the thrashing you are receiving from me. I know, I'm a bull dog and you will not win.

I'm already winning. You don't respond to my position, you respond to your perception of my beliefs, which are only constructs in your head.

 

[ChrisL]

So, the argument is basically this. The state has no right to set rules and regulations upon businesses. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want without state interference, including discriminate against certain (and WHOLE) sectors of our society, and that should be no biggie. We should have segregated shopping and stores. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

No, it's that the States have to take into account the religious liberty of the party in question, and weigh that against the actual harm caused to the "offended" party.

Your "religious liberty" doesn't give you the right to discriminate against people when it comes to conducting business.

Says you. why does one liberty override the other, especially when no harm is done to one side?

No, says the State of Oregon, moron. Obviously, the state sees it as harmful to business practice in their state.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

IOW, you expect racists and bigots to be HONEST. Lol. Hilarious.

No. I expect them to be public about it or keep it to themselves. If they don't want to serve "those people" then let them tell everyone that is their intention - not just when one of "those people" happen to walk in. If they don't advertise, if they don't tell the entire community exactly what they intend to do, then they can't do it.

The fact you don't like it is very encouraging. I think I might be onto something here.

 

[ChrisL]

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

A reasonable position. Thanks for adding some actual debate to the thread, as opposed to the thrashing of ChrisL on this topic.

You mean the thrashing you are receiving from me. I know, I'm a bull dog and you will not win.

I'm already winning. You don't respond to my position, you respond to your perception of my beliefs, which are only constructs in your head.

The only thing you have done is claim some kind of delusional "victim" status because you can't treat others like second-class citizens. Too bad, so sad for you.

 

[ChrisL]

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

IOW, you expect racists and bigots to be HONEST. Lol. Hilarious.

No. I expect them to be public about it or keep it to themselves. If they don't want to serve "those people" then let them tell everyone that is their intention - not just when one of "those people" happen to walk in. If they don't advertise, if they don't tell the entire community exactly what they intend to do, then they can't do it.

The fact you don't like it is very encouraging. I think I might be onto something here.

Sorry, but the states (almost ALL of them) disagree with you and feel that discrimination is harmful to business practice. Go suck on that for a while.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

You're talking like a kook.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Care to address the actual issue, or is this just another label on a box?

 

[PratchettFan]

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

IOW, you expect racists and bigots to be HONEST. Lol. Hilarious.

No. I expect them to be public about it or keep it to themselves. If they don't want to serve "those people" then let them tell everyone that is their intention - not just when one of "those people" happen to walk in. If they don't advertise, if they don't tell the entire community exactly what they intend to do, then they can't do it.

The fact you don't like it is very encouraging. I think I might be onto something here.

Sorry, but the states (almost ALL of them) disagree with you and feel that discrimination is harmful to business practice. Go suck on that for a while.

And that has solved the problem, has it?

 

[martybegan]

So, the argument is basically this. The state has no right to set rules and regulations upon businesses. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want without state interference, including discriminate against certain (and WHOLE) sectors of our society, and that should be no biggie. We should have segregated shopping and stores. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

No, it's that the States have to take into account the religious liberty of the party in question, and weigh that against the actual harm caused to the "offended" party.

Your "religious liberty" doesn't give you the right to discriminate against people when it comes to conducting business.

Says you. why does one liberty override the other, especially when no harm is done to one side?

No, says the State of Oregon, moron. Obviously, the state sees it as harmful to business practice in their state.

Again appeal to Authority. Keep worshiping at the altar of state power...

Actually it appears you HAVE found Religion.

 

[martybegan]

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

I get what you are saying, but I have the feeling that a gas station, even in the reddest necked part of the country, wouldn't stay in business long if it put up a "Whites Only" sign. I am not under the impression discrimination isn't still rampant, but let's get it into the open where people can see it. A while back I saw a news piece on a KKK chapter that was going around their small town trying to explain they were just in favor of supporting the white race, not that they were racists or had anything at all against blacks. Can you imagine? In small town America, the KKK is embarrassed about being racist.

I do not trust the government to please anyone, let alone everyone, in determining what is or is not necessary. Let the market do the job instead. Would you buy a home in a community that proudly proclaimed Jews were not welcome, even if you secretly wished they weren't? Let them discriminate, but make them advertise the fact that they do. I don't think it will be long before the signs disappear.

A reasonable position. Thanks for adding some actual debate to the thread, as opposed to the thrashing of ChrisL on this topic.

You mean the thrashing you are receiving from me. I know, I'm a bull dog and you will not win.

I'm already winning. You don't respond to my position, you respond to your perception of my beliefs, which are only constructs in your head.

The only thing you have done is claim some kind of delusional "victim" status because you can't treat others like second-class citizens. Too bad, so sad for you.

I haven't claimed any Status for myself, again, you can't debate the topic at hand, and have to resort to attacking the person, the wrong person in this case.