Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Foxfyre]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while coolly and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

No it doesn't. For example if you are interviewing candidates for a job picking one of them isn't "preferential treatment" if you gave them all the same opportunity to present their resumes. It would only be "preferential treatment" if you hired your boss's relative over a more qualified candidate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Post #622 said NOTHING about a person HAVING TO DO THEIR NORMAL JOBS. Post #622 offered a rationale or argument if you will for why ordering a book for a particular customer as a book would be ordered for any customer is not the same thing as participating in that customer's activity/event. It went on to explain that the librarian should not have to participate in the customer's activity or event. Likewise a pharmacist should sell to any customer who comes into the pharmacy whatever the pharmacy carries for sale. The pharmacist should not have to special order a product for a customer that the pharmacy does not carry for sale if the pharmacist does not wish to do so.

I quoted your exact words about the librarian having to do their normal job. Are you now denying the words that you actually posted?

The particular prescription is not special ordered. It is simply the filling of yet another Rx just as all of the others are normally handled by the pharmacist. Those products are "carried for sale" pharmacies and it isn't the pharmacist who makes the decision what is for sale, in that instance it was Walgreens.

Post #622 certainly did not endorse government at any level having power to dictate to any business what product or service that business must provide.

That is your "strawman" that has nothing whatsoever to do with the "normal" business of a printer, baker, librarian or pharmacist.

It is not a strawman. It is making an argument for what the law should be, something expressly allowed in the thread topic.

And I said the pharmacist should provide all products he normally carries to all customers who come in for those products. But he should not be required to special order a product that a particular customer wants if he does not want to special order that product and should not be required to participate in an activity or event that he does not wish to participate in.

That too is clearly within the thread topic. And yes, I absolutely deny that your INTERPRETATION of what I posted is what I said.

 

[dblack]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

 

[dblack]

Derideo_Te - can you explain how the right to be treated equally by everyone is an inalienable right? I don't see how it can be. People serve each other at their will, not on demand. Don't they have the right to say no?

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

No it doesn't. For example if you are interviewing candidates for a job picking one of them isn't "preferential treatment" if you gave them all the same opportunity to present their resumes. It would only be "preferential treatment" if you hired your boss's relative over a more qualified candidate.

And if you hired your boss's relative, over a more qualified candidate - would that be a rights violation?

 

[Foxfyre]

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I only offered one example as caveat.

And I don't think I'm splitting hairs at all. You can make the argument that a business should have the right to discriminate for any reason. I might even agree with that argument on the principle of individual liberty but would equally argue that liberty also requires that no business should be required to discriminate. But the right to discriminate for any reason is a different discussion from the thread topic here.

I have chosen to express my personal opinion that it is okay to attach a non-discrimination requirement to a business license that stipulates that the business will provide the products and services they normally offer and have in stock to all customers regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. I don't see that as an unreasonable requirement for a business license as it reflects the values of the community.

But I am adamantly opposed to ANY law at any level of government that would force any business to carry products or offer services that the business owner did not wish to carry or offer and ANY law at any level of government that would require a business to attend or participate in an activity or event in any capacity that the business did not want to participate in.

 

[Ravi]

You are using the term "serve" which I haven't used.

I am using the term "treat".

What's the difference?

Everyone has an inalienable right to be treated equally.

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

 

[Foxfyre]

What's the difference?

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

Different topic for a different thread. This thread is not about whether a business should be able to discriminate against people for who and what they are. Please start your own thread to discuss that.

This thread is about tolerance for all different points of view when those views are NOT forced on others and do not physically and/or materially affect them. It is about whether a person should be allowed to express an unpopular point of view without fear of government or organized civil action punishing him/her for that unpopular point of view. It is about allowing a person to not participate in an activity or event that he/she does not wish to participate in.

 

[Ravi]

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

Different topic for a different thread. This thread is not about whether a business should be able to discriminate against people for who and what they are. Please start your own thread to discuss that.

This thread is about tolerance for all different points of view when those views are NOT forced on others and do not physically and/or materially affect them.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize I was off topic since you were having a discussion about it with dblack.

 

[Michelle420]

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

Different topic for a different thread. This thread is not about whether a business should be able to discriminate against people for who and what they are. Please start your own thread to discuss that.

This thread is about tolerance for all different points of view when those views are NOT forced on others and do not physically and/or materially affect them. It is about whether a person should be allowed to express an unpopular point of view without fear of government or organized civil action punishing him/her for that unpopular point of view. It is about allowing a person to not participate in an activity or event that he/she does not wish to participate in.

Anyone can have a different point of view, civil action will take place if a point of view becomes an action that possibly violates someone else's rights.

This is the difference in prejudice and discrimination, everyone has a bias in their point of view whether popular or not.

 

[Valerie]

For probably the 20th time now: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRING ALL PEOPLE TO BE SERVED EQUALLY who come into the business for a product or service the business normally has for sale.

I do have a problem with a business owner being required to produce a product or service that he normally would not carry when he believes to that product/service to be immoral or offensive or unethical or for any reason he does not want to produce it. And I do have a problem with a business owner being required to participate in an activity/event he chooses not to participate in.

And nobody should have the right to dictate to the business owner what products or services he must provide.

existing law already has all of your concerns covered, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

you have a problem with understanding legal nuance...?

the law requires the business must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened”


you should follow the ACLU links i posted yesterday where you will see thorough explanations of various legal cases which elucidate all the legal nuances you are concerned with...

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

Different topic for a different thread. This thread is not about whether a business should be able to discriminate against people for who and what they are. Please start your own thread to discuss that.

This thread is about tolerance for all different points of view when those views are NOT forced on others and do not physically and/or materially affect them. It is about whether a person should be allowed to express an unpopular point of view without fear of government or organized civil action punishing him/her for that unpopular point of view. It is about allowing a person to not participate in an activity or event that he/she does not wish to participate in.

Anyone can have a different point of view, civil action will take place if a point of view becomes an action that possibly violates someone else's rights.

This is the difference in prejudice and discrimination, everyone has a bias in their point of view whether popular or not.

Nobody here has argued for violating anybody's rights though. But IMO, rights cannot include demands for contribution and participation by others as that violates the others' rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

For probably the 20th time now: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRING ALL PEOPLE TO BE SERVED EQUALLY who come into the business for a product or service the business normally has for sale.

I do have a problem with a business owner being required to produce a product or service that he normally would not carry when he believes to that product/service to be immoral or offensive or unethical or for any reason he does not want to produce it. And I do have a problem with a business owner being required to participate in an activity/event he chooses not to participate in.

And nobody should have the right to dictate to the business owner what products or services he must provide.

existing law already has all of your concerns covered, but you choose to ignore facts and yammer on in circles anyway...

you have a problem with understanding legal nuance...?

the law requires the business must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened”


you should follow the ACLU links i posted yesterday where you will see thorough explanations of various legal cases which elucidate all the legal nuances you are concerned with...

Existing law, case law, court rulings etc. are not valid arguments for this thread as is clearly shown in the OP. If you wish to discuss existing law, case law, court rulings etc. please start your own thread and do that. Do not do it here.

 

[Michelle420]

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

Different topic for a different thread. This thread is not about whether a business should be able to discriminate against people for who and what they are. Please start your own thread to discuss that.

This thread is about tolerance for all different points of view when those views are NOT forced on others and do not physically and/or materially affect them. It is about whether a person should be allowed to express an unpopular point of view without fear of government or organized civil action punishing him/her for that unpopular point of view. It is about allowing a person to not participate in an activity or event that he/she does not wish to participate in.

Anyone can have a different point of view, civil action will take place if a point of view becomes an action that possibly violates someone else's rights.

This is the difference in prejudice and discrimination, everyone has a bias in their point of view whether popular or not.

Nobody here has argued for violating anybody's rights though. But IMO, rights cannot include demands for contribution and participation by others as that violates the others' rights.

Rights most definitely can demand that people of a society follow established laws of their government. If people do not like that law they can lobby to change it. There is no utopia where everyone can do whatever they want or act out in whatever thought process they feel is best.

 

[Valerie]

...Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that basically gives a pass to discrimination as long as it's in the name of God, I've come across a lot of hilarious supporters of the bill who seemed to misunderstand the definition of discrimination. And the concept of logic.

A lot of people bitch and moan about the oppression of bakers or wedding vendors or other people who run public businesses being "forced" to do business with people that would infringe on their beliefs.

...the inability to grasp what discrimination is and isn't is what astounds me.

What the Constitution does not protect is your imaginary right to circumvent laws in the name of your religion.

This is not about discrimination at all. This is about out-of-touch Christians putting on an air of victimhood that doesn't exist.

9 of the Lamest Arguments in Support of Discrimination Stefanie Williams

 

[Valerie]

----
THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.
-----




the law IS as it should be.




Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.


Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

Using Religion to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Foxfyre]

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

Different topic for a different thread. This thread is not about whether a business should be able to discriminate against people for who and what they are. Please start your own thread to discuss that.

This thread is about tolerance for all different points of view when those views are NOT forced on others and do not physically and/or materially affect them. It is about whether a person should be allowed to express an unpopular point of view without fear of government or organized civil action punishing him/her for that unpopular point of view. It is about allowing a person to not participate in an activity or event that he/she does not wish to participate in.

Anyone can have a different point of view, civil action will take place if a point of view becomes an action that possibly violates someone else's rights.

This is the difference in prejudice and discrimination, everyone has a bias in their point of view whether popular or not.

Nobody here has argued for violating anybody's rights though. But IMO, rights cannot include demands for contribution and participation by others as that violates the others' rights.

Rights most definitely can demand that people of a society follow established laws of their government. If people do not like that law they can lobby to change it. There is no utopia where everyone can do whatever they want or act out in whatever thought process they feel is best.

But established laws are not the topic of this thread and are off limits as arguments in this discussion. Nobody is arguing for a utopia here.

So let's return to the thread topic. Why should you or anybody else be able to require me to involve my business in an activity or event I choose not to be a party to in any respect? By 'require' I mean I will be fined or lose my business license or otherwise be punished if I do not do your bidding.

 

[Foxfyre]

----
THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.
-----




the law IS as it should be.




Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.


Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

Using Religion to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

Then make an argument for how the existing law as you understand it promotes tolerance for all points of view and is proper to force people to participate in or contribute to activities they do not wish to be party to. Just citing case law or existing law does not do that. And saying that it is the law is NOT a valid argument for this thread.

 

[Valerie]

it's your burden to prove that existing law fails to defend religious liberty...

repeating yourself and fabricating imaginary victim scenarios just isn't cutting it.

 

[dblack]

What's the difference?

That's not an inalienable right. It's a requirement that others treat everyone equally.

In any case, doesn't that imply that every act of favoritism is violating someone's rights?

[links]
Does that clarify the difference for you?

Not really. I still don't see how a supposed "right to be treated equally" is a coherent concept. Doesn't it imply that every you time exhibit preferential treatment toward someone, you're violating someone else's rights?

I think in the most practical application is that if we both are properly dressed and we both conduct ourselves appropriately, we can each expect to be sold a donut that is for sale when we go into the bakery. That is equal treatment. But in a more intangible context, it doesn't mean that the baker has to be equally friendly to both. He might favor you wjth a warm welcome and friendly questions about the family etc. etc. while cooling and impersonally providing me with the donut I ordered and then turning his attention back to you. Is that equal 'treatment'? Of course not. So equal treatment means that all customers can expect the same product or service the business provides but not necessarily the same treatment as people.

That's splitting some fairly whispy hairs there, Foxy.

The only premise behind any of this public accommodations nonsense that makes any sense to me is that, by public advertising a storefront, businesses are implying they are open to everyone. In light of that, I see nothing wrong with requiring businesses to clearly state their intent to discriminate, so that people don't waste their time. And so others who don't appreciated their bigotry can avoid them as well.

And Derideo_Te didn't stipulate all the caveats you did. He stated it as a general principle - the right to be treated equally. He needs to either defend that claim, or modify it appropriately. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I have a question for you. Say a business is allowed to announce publicly that they do no serve (insert hated group of choice) and therefor PA laws are rescinded. What happens if the only supermarket in town decides not to serve Hispanics. Must Hispanics travel to another town to purchase groceries? Or what if all the supermarkets in town decide to discriminate against the same hated group...where do those people shop?

I don't know. If I lived in that town, I'd go shop for them. Or better yet, open a competing store that did cater to the targeted group. We could also organize a protest and/or a boycott of the business. But it's not necessary to get the police involved.