By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Indiana Governer signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers.

sc94597 on 27 March 2015
ofrm1 said:
TruckOSaurus said:

If the owner doesn't approve of interracial couples, should he be allowed to turn them away too?


The only answer to this question must be yes, which is precisely what is wrong with the libertarian position. It's ironic that libertarians use the exact same arguments that racists used to use to defend jim crow laws in the south. This is why people like Rand Paul have effectively said that the Civil Rights Act's provision dealing with private business was essentially a bad idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_qya7w0hs

It's very simple. Just like with any formal system, you create axioms, or exceptions to the rules. Yes, we have the principle of free enterprise, where anyone is allowed to control their business however they wish, including charging whatever prices they wish. Since this principle, when unregulated, results in a state of affairs that is undesirable for society, we regulate it. In the case of private business, it resulted in applying the fourteenth amendment's equal protection under the law to private businesses. The result is businesses now are obligated to accept minorities as patrons, rather than reject them. This is a boon for society. To reject real progress because it flies in the face of your principles is foolish. The progress shouldn't change, your principles should because they're wrong.

But if one believes that most discrimination was government mandated, it becomes much less an issue to let private businesses that are racist fail because nobody is not subsidizing their costs to discriminate. I find the libertarian position to be much harsher on racists (and homophobes) to be honest. 



Around the Network
Skullwaker on 27 March 2015
sc94597 said:
At that point it becomes a matter of property rights vs. anti-discrimination.  If one is a liberal in a classical sense then they will believe that the owner has the private property right over the store and its goods, as well as themselves so they should be free to sell to whomever they wish. On the other hand, modern liberals believe in the concept of positive liberty where one is only free in so much that they are able to reach their projected ends. A classical liberal would argue that you can't have everybody be free in that circumstance, because in order for one group or person to reach their projected ends another must be limited. It gets very complicated, but basically the argument is how strongly does one have rights to their property? Personally, as a propertarian I think it is consistent to say that all people have full rights to themselves and their property and should be able to choose how they live their own lives and use their own property unless they restrict other people's usage of themselves and their property in some way (i.e stealing from them, enslaving them, or murdering them.) Since, in my opinion, discrimination would be very miniscule if it weren't for government mandating it (see discrimination in Northern states in 30-50's vs. Southern States) I think it is more harmful to society to weaken one's rights to their property and their liberty (what they can do with their things and with whom they do it.) I also think such laws make things so much more complicated, like identifying who truly is a respectable business owner and who isn't. That makes it a lot harder for me to make proper market decisions about who I want to give my money to so that they can profit. 

 

Again, I agree with what you're saying. It is a very complex situation and there isn't a scenario where everyone wins. I do see both sides, but I just find the concept of rejecting someone's business over something they have no control over to be very juvenile. 

I just hope this bill doesn't become a law (I really don't think it will though).



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

S.T.A.G.E. on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:

Hello again STAGE.

At bolded, that might sometimes be the case but is it always? Go to u-tube and watch some of the gay pride parades. or better yet check out:

this notice the dildo on the end of the mic? Notice all the cuts in that video.  This is meant to make the opposition look stupid. It is meant to undermine the beliefs of the oposition not simply to try to exist in peace as you put it.

The dildo on the mic was using irony to mock them, but at the same time he presented to one of the Christians the possibility from his testimony that he could've been bisexual and actually had it on tape when he indirectly admitted to having the urge to kiss another man. He was brave to admit it, but how he came to hate the way he was thinking is obvious. Christian culture made him hate the way he felt.

He proved another Christian was a hypocrite and not following the seven sins properly because of gluttony.



The_Yoda on 27 March 2015

Sorry guys I'm trying to keep up with the conversations (and not doing so well at it) while I'm working. If I miss answering one of your questions or take forever in doing so I'm sorry.



sc94597 on 27 March 2015
Wonktonodi said:

1. Yes I am aware I was putting in hypotheticals, however you were getting it to the point where you make it sound like the bakery is the wedding planner. I know churches can refuse wedding, on the flip side there were gay wedding at churches long before it legal under the law.

The big questions. 1. Does it really matter whether or not it is the same as other people's religious views? not all religions are recognised and some states tried to ban other religious laws. 2. Why do the views even have to be religious?  well acourding to the new law in Indiana they do. 3. Why can't people refuse to do something based on their personal morals and ethic system?  While many people can refuse service to anyone, it's why and how they do it that can be the issue. When you have established a business in our society there are pocedures you need to go through and rules you have to follow. Or there can be legal repricussions. There are ways for pepole who want to refuse to do things based on their own personal beleif systems, stay outside the system that doesn't allow for them to discriminate based on them.

2. Gay here as well, still think it was stupid. Yes they might view it as a cosequence of gay marrage but it's still a serarate issue. Yes desire for the law didn't come out of nothing, but it's still going through a legislature and not from the people.

I don't expect the government to take care of the oppressed I demand it, I fight for it sometimes things go well sometimes not. Prop 8 passed here in CA in 2008 by the will of the people but the courts are what struck it down. Yes governments have also done much wrong, but there are tools there that are more efective than boycott after boycott pressuring one busineess after another. Especially when sometime now there is a market for those who do descriminate.

1. In the United States the first amendment prevents favoring one religious view over another. So recognizition doesn't matter. 2. I disagree with the specification then and therefore the law. 3. Isn't that the same argument you guys have had problem with, that one shouldn't have to leave if they don't feel comfortable? I personally believe freedom of association should be a thing, and it shouldn't have limitations. Conflicts are massively reduced in that instance. 

2. I think consistency is important. The only reason why there is such a large scale division between LGBT and the religious right is because it is fueled by politics. If the situation became apolitical it would slowly become a non-issue as the generations who hold such archaic beliefs die out. 



Around the Network
The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
Skullwaker said:
The_Yoda said:
A choice in what? To serve someone or not in the business they built?

 

I'm talking about the consumer. They should have the right to walk into a public establishment and be treated the same as everyone else.

If they built that land on a separate property not affiliated with the United States, then they can enforce their bigotry. But they're apart of a nation that has established laws and people here have rights. They can't simply ignore that.

Would you be saying the same thing if a black man walked into a barber shop and the barber rejected his service because of his race? Is that more acceptable?

Sorry man I'm still not getting how you're relating that to choice.  Are you saying they should be able to choose if they are going to do business with a person that doesn't agree with their lifestyle rather than the business owner choosing not to do business with them? 



Skullwaker on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:
Sorry man I'm still not getting how you're relating that to choice.  Are you saying they should be able to choose if they are going to do business with a person that doesn't agree with their lifestyle rather than the business owner choosing not to do business with them?  

 

Bolded.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
The_Yoda said:

Hello again STAGE.

At bolded, that might sometimes be the case but is it always? Go to u-tube and watch some of the gay pride parades. or better yet check out:

this notice the dildo on the end of the mic? Notice all the cuts in that video.  This is meant to make the opposition look stupid. It is meant to undermine the beliefs of the oposition not simply to try to exist in peace as you put it.

The dildo on the mic was using irony to mock them, but at the same time he presented to one of the Christians the possibility from his testimony that he could've been bisexual and actually had it on tape when he indirectly admitted to having the urge to kiss another man. He was brave to admit it, but how he came to hate the way he was thinking is obvious. Christian culture made him hate the way he felt.

He proved another Christian was a hypocrite and not following the seven sins properly because of gluttony.


You are reading quite a bit into this mans thought process from less than a minute of video ... not obvious at all in my opinion



Aura7541 on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:

He is an idividual in said community (or at least for the purposes of the video he plays as one) I didn't say he was representative of the whole community.  You said "The cuts in the video didn't make the opposition look foolish. The opposition made the opposition look foolish." so those individuals on the side of the oppostion represent the whole of the opposition? Is that your view?

And yet you keep presenting that video as a counterargument to the statement that "the LGBT community doesn't force its views on other people". Perhaps, you interpreted the LGBT community as the entire LGBT community while I interpreted it as the general LGBT community. I would agree if we were talking about the entire community, though I have already gone over that. However, the LBGT community, in general, doesn't force views on other people.

And when I said the opposition, I meant the opposition in the video. I thought I made that clear, but apparently I did not. So the technically correct phrase would be "the opposition in the video made the opposition in the video look foolish."



The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
Skullwaker said:
The_Yoda said:
Sorry man I'm still not getting how you're relating that to choice.  Are you saying they should be able to choose if they are going to do business with a person that doesn't agree with their lifestyle rather than the business owner choosing not to do business with them?  

 

Bolded.

sc94597 said:
I know the question wasn't directly at me, but I thought I'd answer from my perspective. Honestly I'd feel even worse if I went to the grocery store, the clerk gave me poor service, still treated me like trash, and I rewarded him by giving him money for the goods (let's say the clerk is also the owner.) I'd rather see him fail by denying me service than to see him succeed by giving me a service he doesn't want to give me. I'd like all restaruants that are racist or homophobic to outright refuse service to me rather than have the staff spit in my food. I personally like for shitty people to be clearly shitty so that I can avoid them. 

Skullwalker said:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your sentiment, but I believe people should at least have a choice. This is something that was at the center of the world's attention decades ago and has been resolved ever since, yet it's being brought up again? Very disconcerting, in my opinion.

You are wanting it both ways ... the owner has to wear their colors on their arm so you can choose to give them your business but they have to give you their product if you want it ...

 

I really feel like I am misinterpreting you