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.
It is not about "hatred" at all. It's about property rights. It is about the right to not be aggressed against by the government or other people on your own property. You keep using your supposed noble ends to justify any means necessary. This is all of course for our own good...I've heard that before. Oh yeah a lot of slave owners justified it by saying it was actually better for the black man to be enslaved because they were introduced to Christianity and "civilized." Your noble ends do not justify our enslavement.
What you'll never understand is that slavery and Jim Crow flow from YOUR principles, not mine. I believe in liberty and freedom of association, you believe in a group of people (the state/slave owners) exercising inordinate amounts of control over another group of people and telling them what they can and cannot do and how to live their lives via force, intimidation, coercion, and the threat of violence. Just because we get to elect our masters does not make it any less immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
I hate that is has become a "religious freedom" discussion because this isn't a religious issue. This is a property rights issue and about freedom for everybody. I believe that as a baker or pizza maker you have the right to refuse service to ANYBODY for ANY reason, religious or not, on your property. There is no such thing as "religious freedom" there is freedom and it should be exercised and enjoyed by everybody. There are no "black rights" or "gay rights" or "female rights" there are individual rights and they apply equally to everybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
No it is not, this is all so wrong I don't know where to begin.
First off, going to a pizza parlor or a bakery is a voluntary act. You are of your own free will going to there, no one is making you. By doing so you are stepping on to someone else's property, namely the owner's. The owner has the RIGHT to run his business how he/she sees fit and to refuse his service and his property to anyone he chooses because that property is HIS, not YOURS. There is no force involved there, every action was voluntary. That is not "morality policing" but it is discrimination. I hate to break it to you, but discrimination is part of life. By marrying my wife I discriminated against billions of other women, by drinking Coke instead of Pepsi I'm discriminating. By being friends with one person instead of another, that is discrimination. Every time you make a choice you have discriminated!
Now if you respond to the refusal of service by getting your friend and rolling back up on the pizza shop with guns and forcing him to bake a pie that would be an act of aggression and force. It would be both immoral and illegal. Now if your friend happened to be the local PD and they carry badges, suddenly this becomes legal and everyone is like "oh yeah good thing that happened." That doesn't make any sense. The owner at that point no longer owns his/her property in any meaningful way, the "public" does.
A law allowing business owners to exercise rights they should have had all along is not "morality policing." Morality policing is the use of FORCE to make people comply with a standard of morality. If the law said that owners HAD to refuse service to homosexuals that would be morality policing and it is no different than a law that says that an owner CANNOT refuse service to anybody. Both are versions of morality policing and both are uses of force. Just because you happen to agree with the current version of statist morality policing doesn't make it right, it just makes you a hypocrite.
I know Libertarians don't like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 b/c they think property rights trump all others, but it is the law of the land. A pizza parlor is a public accommodation.
See, this gets old. Just because I disagree with how to handle this does not mean I'm good with what happened. You are no more open minded than the ones you complain about.
If you disagree with someone you have to lash out.
I think you want to make this about the proper role of the government. But the government in this case is responding to what various factions of society want. Government is just the tool. Society is determining what the balance should be here. That's why people are arguing, debating, discussing. That's why legislatures are passing laws and revising them and reversing themselves.
As a society, we are constantly evolving. It's a sign of a healthy society. A stagnant society is not healthy. And this issue involves deep-seated ideas and values. We are at a point of profound change. It's incredibly exciting.
Just because more people want an idea doesn't make it right. This is why democracy is a form of tyranny and why the Founders took such pains to keep us from becoming a democracy. Democracy truly is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
I love these extremist scenarios that statists come up with to justify their tyranny.
As for your silly scenario, pharmacists take an oath when they become pharmacists and if they violate that they could lose their license and accreditation.
Another thing is, under your scenario the Jewish guy is going to die even if it's illegal to do so. In reality though I don't foresee such a scenario happening (and even if it did it would likely be an extremely isolated incident) and I do not believe that we should trash the principles that made us a free society because I am afraid of some far flung disaster happening.
Wait, there are LAWS??? that impose penalties if a pharmacist discriminates who he sells products to??????
OMG!!! He could lose his license to do business?????? And you're OKAY with this?????? OMG!!!!!
Except that's not the case. No classes are protected while others are not. Some classes are specifically identified by the law because they have historically been persecuted. Members of classes once persecuted are identified specifically to prevent future persecution.
Someone overweight is persecuted. Someone with bad acne is persecuted. The list is endless.
It's not protecting one set over another. It's identifying those who have been systematically persecuted in the past.
Systematically persecuted by whom? The GOVERNMENT! The very same entity that you know what to charge with the "protection" of these special classes. The government enforced Jim Crow, the government enforced slavery, these were once the "law of the land." The government oppresses people by it's very nature, you think just because the government has changed whip hands that everything is just fine?
Just because more people want an idea doesn't make it right. This is why democracy is a form of tyranny and why the Founders took such pains to keep us from becoming a democracy. Democracy truly is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
It's not about more people wanting an idea.
It's about a profound change in society, in a society that has designed its government to reflect the society. Our government, of the people, by the people and for the people, reflects our values and mores. When those values and mores change, our government reflects those changes.
And if I hear the two wolves and a lamb meme one more time, I think I'm going to puke. So old. So dated. So boring.
People have changed without legislation. However, legislation can be enacted to reflect the changes in a society. That's what happened when slavery was ended. That's what happened when women fought for and began to achieve equality with men. That's what happened when prohibition was enacted, and when prohibition was ended.
Legally blacks and women were not allowed to vote. I'm not arguing against laws that made that legal. Do I see owning someone and offending someone on the same level? No I do not.
Quote:
While the laws can be problematic, the laws also reflect our values as a society, and are a pathway for those who have been persecuted to fight back. Removing such a pathway can also be problematic, since it gives those who choose to persecute a level of impunity in doing so.
I know Libertarians don't like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 b/c they think property rights trump all others, but it is the law of the land. A pizza parlor is a public accommodation.
"I know abolitionists don't like the Fugitive Slave Act but it is the law of the land." "I know civil rights advocates don't like Jim Crow but it is the law of the land." "I know Jews don't like concentration camps or Nazi policy, but it is the law of the land."
And since pizza joints are "public accommodations" and the public is essence the true owner of the parlor...when am I going to see my cut of the profits from Papa John's?
Wait, there are LAWS??? that impose penalties if a pharmacist discriminates who he sells products to??????
OMG!!! He could lose his license to do business?????? And you're OKAY with this?????? OMG!!!!!
Those are rules, not laws. Do I have a problem with the NFL creating a rule that says 10 yards is a first down? No.
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.
