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.
A free society, you are allowed to do anything with your hamburger as long as you do not do harm to another person.
Not engaging in business with another person is not doing harm, it is simply declining to interact. This is a peaceful action. In a truly free society, all peaceful actions are allowed.
Not engaging in business with another person is a "peaceful action"??
Do you have any idea how humiliating it was for minority groups like African-Americans, Jews, Asians, Gay people to be refused service or denied access to a business or accommodation open to the public?
Are you advocating we turn back the clock to a time when signs like "No Irish Need Apply" or "White Only" or "We Cater To Gentile Clientele Only" ???
The person or group who is denied a seat in your restaurant and the ability to buy a product in your store or the service you provide might respond in a decidedly "unpeaceful" if they feel they have been unfairly discriminated against and insulted after you just told them "We don't want your kind here."
Actually, I've been told I'm "overly empathetic" and I need to be tougher on people...so that's kind of funny to me. I think you're confusing lack of empathy with being logical and principled.
I believe that it's wrong to use force against someone who isn't using it against anyone else, and I think it's wrong to violate anyone's property rights. If I lacked empathy I'd break those principles with no guilt at all, but I know it's wrong and refuse to advocate that. Applying those principles logically and consistently, I believe it's wrong to coerce someone into doing what I want them to do when they aren't infringing on anyone's rights. If they were forcefully preventing a minority from shopping somewhere else, that's completely different and force would be justified to stop that from happening.
You are totally mixing up issues here. Ones property rights, are not the same thing when one has a business that is in business to sell those properties. That's why it's illegal to deny service to people based on race.
Did you have bad experience with the law at one point? I've never heard anyone arguing against the rule of law, but at the same time using the law to argue about their property rights. You do understand that property rights are LAWS? !
I'm getting the impression, for you, it's all about you. As long as you think the laws are on your side, you're fine. As soon as you have a law you dislike, it becomes tyrannical and forcing someone's else's opinion on you.
This law will force people to shop elsewhere, because they have been denied.
You are totally mixing up issues here. Ones property rights, are not the same thing when one has a business that is in business to sell those properties. That's why it's illegal to deny service to people based on race.
Did you have bad experience with the law at one point? I've never heard anyone arguing against the rule of law, but at the same time using the law to argue about their property rights. You do understand that property rights are LAWS? !
I'm getting the impression, for you, it's all about you. As long as you think the laws are on your side, you're fine. As soon as you have a law you dislike, it becomes tyrannical and forcing someone's else's opinion on you.
This law will force people to shop elsewhere, because they have been denied.
It sounds like T0103E is making a case for laws based on the right, as he acknowledged, "to be a jerk." It doesn't make sense to discriminate against folks for irrational reasons. Being fully aware one is acting irrationally doesn't make the act rational, it make the act predetermined.
This type of reasoning seems to cause more problems than it solves.
You are totally mixing up issues here. Ones property rights, are not the same thing when one has a business that is in business to sell those properties. That's why it's illegal to deny service to people based on race.
Did you have bad experience with the law at one point? I've never heard anyone arguing against the rule of law, but at the same time using the law to argue about their property rights. You do understand that property rights are LAWS? !
This law will force people to shop elsewhere, because they have been denied.
I meant that people have the right to do with their property what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. In this case, people want to use force (violating non-aggression principle) to make others sell something they produced and own (violating property rights). They want to force you to give your property to someone you don't want to give it to. The issue seems to be that you don't like their behavior, even if it doesn't violate anyone's rights, and for some reason you want to violate their rights. Why?
Also, I never argued for law. I'm against threatening violence against peaceful people, so that rules out most laws. I believe in using force in self-defense and when protecting others from anyone who tries to attack, steal, or any other violation of their natural rights.
Quote:
I'm getting the impression, for you, it's all about you. As long as you think the laws are on your side, you're fine. As soon as you have a law you dislike, it becomes tyrannical and forcing someone's else's opinion on you.
You'd be confused, then. I'm legitimately surprised that people don't understand this...it's really simple: Live and let live. Respect the rights of others. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Is it okay if I initiate force against you? Is it okay if I don't respect your right to use your property how you wish, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? Don't hit, don't steal. We learn that when we're toddlers, but people act like its different when done through "the political process".
It sounds like T0103E is making a case for laws based on the right, as he acknowledged, "to be a jerk." It doesn't make sense to discriminate against folks for irrational reasons. Being fully aware one is acting irrationally doesn't make the act rational, it make the act predetermined.
This type of reasoning seems to cause more problems than it solves.
You have the right to be a jerk without being violently punished for it, as long as it you're not infringing on anyone else's rights. I feel like a broken record, but I don't know an easier way to put it. I think it's similar to freedom of speech..."I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire (smart guy)
I agree with you that being aware of your irrationality doesn't make it rational. I'm saying that you have the right to be irrational and not be punished, again, as long as you aren't violating anyone's rights.
Dr. King (correctly) pointed out that people are not obligated to obey unjust laws, rather we are to DISobey unjust laws.
And seek to try to highlight the injustice through suffering the legal consequences of breaking those laws, as you inadvertently pointed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
The fact that a law is in force does not make just, moral, or right.
A law isn't unjust because you decide it is. A law isn't unjust because it says you have to be a better person than you want to be. A law isn't unjust because it makes things more just for other people at the expense of the tyranny of the majority you want to engage in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Only an amoral sheep would mindlessly follow all laws simply because they are the laws.
What puerile mudslinging should apply to people would presume that breaking laws should have no consequence, or presume that they are the final arbiter of what laws are or are not just?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Is obedience to authority a virtue in your mind?
Not especially. Standing up and accepting the consequences of your actions, however, is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
I can think of several prominent conservatives who'd better watch themselves in Indiana. They could easily be refused service because somebody thinks they are gay, whether they actually are or not.
No prevarication would be necessary: Many religions believe God is love, and/or that there is inherent worth and dignity in every person, so the act of discriminating against God's children because the happen to be gay stains a person with sin. This law allows people of conscience to refuse to serve anyone who discriminates against gay people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty
Refuse gay customers? Really. Do gays go into a business and say, "I need a hammer, I'm gay" or do they intend to?
Some commercial transactions just naturally lend themselves to having to reveal one's sexual orientation. In my marriage, the woman has a male name. It would be offensive if for our thirtieth anniversary we would be denied the services of the best bakery in town to create our anniversary cake because the owner thought we were homosexual, but since that would be a misapprehension it would not as offensive as if we were a homosexual couple, in which case it would simply be corrupt hatred directed at us. Neither offense should go unpunished.
Incidentally, what I did in the paragraph above is that which those who support horrendous actions such as the Indiana law seem incapable of doing: Practicing the golden rule by placing themselves in the position of the person at whom they would direct their behavior, working to understand how the manner they intend to treat others would feel if every aspect of the situation was reverse and they were the ones being treated unjustly. I suspect that the capacity to exhibit basic empathy for others is what's dreadfully missing from the people who support horrendous laws such as this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park
Do you have any idea how humiliating it was for minority groups like African-Americans, Jews, Asians, Gay people to be refused service or denied access to a business or accommodation open to the public?
Indeed that does seem to be the point: The people who support these laws evident don't have any idea or cannot bring themselves to feel how it would be to be something other than the majority.
If you do not want to sell your product(s) to someone because to their religion, sex, color or all the rest of the discriminatory reasons then get out of business. The only legitimate consideration a business has about its customers is their ability to pay for what ever you are selling. That is all.
Not engaging in business with another person is a "peaceful action"??
Do you have any idea how humiliating it was for minority groups like African-Americans, Jews, Asians, Gay people to be refused service or denied access to a business or accommodation open to the public?
Are you advocating we turn back the clock to a time when signs like "No Irish Need Apply" or "White Only" or "We Cater To Gentile Clientele Only" ???
The person or group who is denied a seat in your restaurant and the ability to buy a product in your store or the service you provide might respond in a decidedly "unpeaceful" if they feel they have been unfairly discriminated against and insulted after you just told them "We don't want your kind here."
Get back to us when I can buy bacon in a Muslim butcher.
Get back to us when someone can walk into a black owned and operated bakery and get a "White Power" cake made.
Get back to us when some skinhead can force a Jewish bakery to make a "happy birthday hitler" cake.
It's about freedom and liberty, not bigotry.
Every time that you hand a special right to someone, you take a right away from someone else.
Personally, I think it's foolish on a business not to serve certain groups, but that's their right.
Not engaging in business with another person is a "peaceful action"??
Learn what words mean, kid. A peaceful action is one in which no violent aggression takes place. Would you like to explain to me how declining to do business with someone causes physical harm to a person or their property?
Hint. It doesn't.
Quote:
Do you have any idea how humiliating it was for minority groups like African-Americans, Jews, Asians, Gay people to be refused service or denied access to a business or accommodation open to the public?
First, yes. I have had people decline to do business with me for silly, bigoted reasons.
Second, who the hell cares? Just because you feel "humiliated", does not mean that any demonstrable harm has been done to you or your property.
If hurting someones feelings is a violent action, we have to outlaw everything.
Third. You can use silly terms like "open to the public" but the fact remains that we are discussing PRIVATE PROPERTY. If you are not allowed to decide who is invited onto your property or not, you don't truly own it.
Quote:
Are you advocating we turn back the clock to a time when signs like "No Irish Need Apply" or "White Only" or "We Cater To Gentile Clientele Only" ???
Strawman. Point out where I made any such claim. I am not advocating we move backwards at all, I am advocating that we move forward. I believe actual freedom is the future for man-kind... Not this fake, artificial freedom that you believe in.... (If people only have freedom to act in ways you like, or you will have the government use force upon them, they are not free. Period.)
Quote:
The person or group who is denied a seat in your restaurant and the ability to buy a product in your store or the service you provide might respond in a decidedly "unpeaceful"
If they respond to a peaceful action with violence because their feelings got hurt, then THEY are the ones employing aggression and initiating violence where there was none. That makes them in the wrong, and rather childish.
If you throw a violent fit because someone declines to do business with you, you are a child.
Quote:
if they feel they have been unfairly discriminated against and insulted after you just told them "We don't want your kind here."
I personally, would never support a bigoted business. I think bigotry is a disgusting trait, but I believe in actual human freedom, where you are allowed to be bigoted as long as you do not initiate aggression against another group or individual.
If their was a store that said "No blacks allowed" or anything similar... I would take my business to a competitor that isn't bigoted. I would protest out front of the store on public property, and I would spread the word that they are bigots, and they should be boycotted.
In other words, I would respond to their peaceful (although distasteful) action, with peaceful actions of my own. That is what grown-ups do.
(Children go running to mommy and daddy government and ask them to punish the person who has done nothing violent or aggressive.)
You can not believe in using aggression on peaceful people to shape their behavior, and pretend to be pro-freedom at the same time. The very principle of it violates the main tenant of human freedom. (Which is the concept of self-ownership and the ownership of one's labor.)
You need to do some reading on the core values of freedom, I suggest Adam Smith, Francis Bacon, John Locke, etc... because you are either painfully ignorant of the subject matter, or you choose to let emotion rather than logic rule your mind. I am hoping it is the ignorance issue, because that is a simple remedy of digesting some philosophy.
You have the right to be a jerk without being violently punished for it, as long as it you're not infringing on anyone else's rights. I feel like a broken record, but I don't know an easier way to put it. I think it's similar to freedom of speech..."I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire (smart guy)
Does the 'right to be a jerk' include the expectation of receiving a service? If I go to a business & am denied a service, am I being punished? Do I have the right to ask why? Do I have the right to make an appeal to a third party?
The current law in question favors the business owner over the non business owner, & is apparently designed to remove recourse or appeal.
What about an employee of a business who denies service based on irrational reasons? Does one have to suspend one's reason in order to remain employed?
The type of reasoning encouraged by laws such as these cause more problems than they seek to resolve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I agree with you that being aware of your irrationality doesn't make it rational. I'm saying that you have the right to be irrational and not be punished, again, as long as you aren't violating anyone's rights.
A neutral, generally applicable law is constitutional unless irrational. This assertion has been used to expand individual rights. Here it is being used to deny individual rights.
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.
