Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I walked into a gay owned and operated store wearing a tee shirt stating "I support traditional marriage", are they forced to serve me? Or should they have the freedom based on their beliefs not to serve me?
Should they by law be forced to?
People shouldn't have to be encouraged or forced to do the right thing, they should just do the right thing. I can't think of anytime acting prejudicial is ever the right thing.
It's not at all surprising to me that conservatives would be happy to go back to the days when you can openly discriminate against others (ah, those good old days of slavery!). It's just disgusting that they call it "religious freedom."
You think a Jewish sign maker should be forced to make Hate signs for a skinhead Nazi group ?
How about an Abortion supporter to cater a Anti Abortion dinner ?
Just my opinion but when you are engaged in any business you have to follow secular law and the rules of Mammon or the secular state will punish you and Mammon will bankrupt you. Turning away customers for any reason within the law is contrary to the rules of commerce.
You have every right to discriminate against anyone you want in your church or private club. If you do not want to deal with all of the public get out of business and find another way of making a living.
If the Jew wants to stay in business he will make a sign for anyone with the cash. He does not have to display the sign in his store.
Good people disobey bad laws, period. Just because a law got passed by a government with confidence ratings (for all three branches) under 25 percent, does not make it just or good.
Indeed they do, as they should.
In "Letter From Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote the following:
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Discrimination, before the definition colloquially became the same as the definition as bigotry because people are too weak at English to use the proper word,
Or too polite. Say that another poster is discriminating, and the moderators here will not think twice about your comment. Say that another poster is a bigot, and that might get you an infraction.
However, your point is well taken. We are talking, in this thread, about unjust discrimination. It cannot hurt to point that out when a comment, such as mine, could be misconstrued about talking about generalized bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
A free society, you are allowed to do anything with your hamburger as long as you do not do harm to another person.
If you're going to criticize my comment for being arguably vague due to use of a word that could be misconstrued, then you should not immediately thereafter go ahead and commit the offense yourself. You aren't describing a "free" society. You are describing a libertarian society, not a prototypical free society. Just like "discrimination" exists on a spectrum that includes different degrees of discrimination, the word "free" also exists on a spectrum that includes different degrees of freedom. You yourself chose to point out one specific point on that spectrum, and not even one of the endpoints, since you make clear that the specific level of freedom you are referring to does not include the freedom to harm another person. So you're talking about somewhere between the endpoints of the freedom spectrum, just like I am.
Among other failings, the point you prefer places the comfort and luxury of some over the basic needs of those most vulnerable in society. It advocates for a regression to a more barbarian type of society where exploiters win and compassion loses. It teaches our children self-centered egoism. It teaches our adults callous disregard for others. It rewards thuggery. It's morally offensive. It is your right to prefer it but not to expect society to kowtow to your preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
Not engaging in business with another person is not doing harm
Self-ratifying nonsense. Just two of several impacts: The person who is discriminated against is deprived of fairness and justice in the commercial marketplace and incurs damage as a result, both with regard to their quality of life and, if the unjust discrimination is institutionalized, as a law would do, incurs an aggregate financial degradation due to the law of supply and demand. There is no dispute that if you reduce the supply of a commodity its price increases.
These aren't thoughts I just came up with, nor all of the myriad associated impacts. There is a whole body of well-established fact on which the anti-discrimination measures are based. No one is going to bother to reproduce the thousands of pages of witness thereof in this thread. So consider all that included here and yourself invited to research the matter yourself with an open mind toward learning why what you support is bad. Please enter into that activity willing to accept that even though it argues against the libertarian preference you have, it is both more substantial and more important from a human standpoint than the petty priorities that underlie libertarian perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
Bullcrap.
Your unwillingness to admit that citizens are obligated to abide by the terms and conditions of citizenship is duly noted, and dismissed. There is no justification for the rationalization of antisocial neglect of one's responsibilities as a citizen to abide by the law. You just don't want to. That's tough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
Plenty of terrible laws exist today and have in the past, a good example being the Fugitive Slave Act.
So get the bad laws changed, or accept your own failure for being unable to provide a compelling enough justification for your personal preference. Alternatively, break the laws you don't like and be honorable enough to do so openly and without evasion, and prove the moral foundation for your violation by accepting and suffering the punishment for violating the law, in the hope that it will outrage your fellow citizens enough to change their minds, as Slowpoke_TX inadvertently pointed out:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
In "Letter From Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote the following:...
Ignoring the law as if it doesn't exist and as if you're not obliged to abide by it - is without merit; exclusively self-motivated and without moral or legal justification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
Just because I was born on a land-mass, and have not left my homeland, does not mean I agree with the government's actions or dictates, implicitly or otherwise.
Your lack of agreement doesn't mitigate your obligation. That decision was taken from you by your ancestors. Blame them if you wish, but it wouldn't be a very mature reaction to the reality you must accept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
Wrong.
No, my comment was correct, especially in the context of my expansion of it earlier in this reply. You just don't like how my comment ruins the corrupt narrative you're trying to use to rationalize the offenses you're trying to defend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
Following laws does not make one responsible or reasonable.
But disclaiming the consequences of not abiding by the law makes one irresponsible and unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
It seems that you don't understand that laws are backed with violence to the people who follow them "voluntarily" too.
I understand very well the craven nature of the argument you try to use to rationalize the irresponsible behavior you're trying to defend. No amount of dodging and evading in your comments will overcome that.
Here is the libertarian question: do businesses have freedom, or do individuals?
Personally, I think that's a very good question.
In earlier (& simpler) times, only a person could sue or be sued. When most businesses were either sole proprietors or partnerships, this was not a problem, business owner(s) were simply held liable. The legal fictions regarding corporate personhood came into being (mostly) after the Industrial Revolution. The concept of an ‘artificial person’ was seen to solve more problems than it created & became the preferred organizational form for businesses. ‘Troubleshooting’ this concept became necessary when ‘glitches’ were revealed. One of the earliest revelations showed the ‘glitch’ inherent in the limited liability function.
In a sole proprietorship, or partnership, the ‘natural person’ owner(s) were held liable for the debts of the business. When organized in the corporate form, the ‘natural person’ owner(s) enjoy limited liability, they could not be sued or held personally liable for the debts of the business.
In the earlier stages, individuals had no recourse if they sued a corporation for a breach of contract because the ‘natural person’ owner(s) were not liable & the corporation itself was not a person. (these were used as legal arguments)
There were/are benefits to the concept of Incorporation but this was probably one of the first problems the concept (legal fiction) created. One of the earlier resolutions was to suggest a corporation could be sued, just as a person could be sued, & therefore be held accountable for debts.
Since then, extending other rights to corporations (beyond those necessary to ensure accountability for debts) have been suggested. Sometimes it seems to me as if some of today's problems come from yesterday's solutions.
I'm just curious, but can't businesses in any state that does not protect against sexual orientation discriminate against gay customers?
Unless there is a city ordinance that says that they cannot. One effect of the Indiana state law is to effectively nullify city or county ordinances that may come into effect.
Furthermore, where the law is effectively silent, it leaves open a cause of action by those discriminated against. Another effect of the Indiana law is to seek to quash such causes of action. Courts may choose to use such a law as justification to decline consideration of suits claiming unjust discrimination, while in the absence of such a law they may feel compelled to consider the suit in the context of broader tenets. Indeed, once a law is in place, the proper response to unjust discrimination is to challenge the law rather than sue the bigot.
The guy pulls up, takes a look at you and doesn't even get out of the car. "Sorry, we don't serve Indian/black/gay/Asian people. Against our personal beliefs. Good luck."
Or how about a business that refuses to serve white people? You didn't include that. Why are white people always the villain to you people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't think of anytime acting prejudicial is ever the right thing.
