- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:54 pm to FT
quote:Accuse is not the right word. A statist is one who supports the state, it's neither pejorative nor complementary. It is a neutral descriptive term like capitalist or pacifist.
People are accusing people of being statists like that's a bad thing.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:54 pm to LSUnKaty
Alright, well chalk me up as a statist, then.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:55 pm to asurob1
quote:As I asked in the other thread, what is the legal situation that is the middle ground?
Once more, bullshite. And you well know this.
The current situation involves the government using their force to back those who believe they will be/are discriminated against by businesses.
You also believe that the proposed law would result in the government using their force to back those who wish to discriminate.
Now, the issue I'm having is the lack of a middle ground here. There are never only two sides to an issue. There must be a situation where the government backs neither side.
If the proposed law doesn't result in the government remaining neutral and apart from the issue of freedom of association, what system would result in that?
And an answer of "that isn't possible" is not acceptable.
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:56 pm to Scruffy
quote:ISWYDTquote:Why?
enough with the "if" questions
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:56 pm to Jbird
quote:
I love the hatred
I know, we should hold a telethon for them and raise money to help with the awareness of their plight.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:56 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
enough with the "if" questions its not a perfect situation where everyone will be happy. but its a bill that allows people to discriminate and any bill thats allows this is just wrong.
Don't you see how banning businesses from discriminating based on their religious or moral convictions forces the individuals owning or working for that businesses to violate their own morals? Don't you see how forcing business owners and workers to violate their religious beliefs is discrimination against those individuals?
Think about this: if you were gay, why would you want to buy a wedding cake from someone who hates gays and thinks they're icky and evil because his book told him they do? Would you prefer:
A. he is forced to make you a cake anyways and you pay him for that service, helping to keep the aforementioned crazy bigot in business or
B. purchase a cake from someone who supports your point of view
If discriminatory actions are designed to alienate potential customers. However, alienating customers generally means reduced revenues and business. If too many customers are alienated by a policy (including those who are not being discriminated against but find the discrimination abhorrent) the business will cease to be profitable and go out of business. If alienating a customer base actually encourages more customers to frequent the business, than that business will be more successful.
The free market will decide what is morally just and what is not. If people do not approve of excluding gays, they will exclude those businesses that exclude them. There is no reason for the government to penalize people for engaging in poor business practices.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:58 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
enough with the "if" questions its not a perfect situation where everyone will be happy. but its a bill that allows people to discriminate and any bill thats allows this is just wrong.
However the motivation behind this bill parallels my example but with the bakery owner and a photographer. The baker was forced to bake a gay cake and the photographer was forced to take pictures at a "wedding" ceremony against his religion. You support this?
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:59 pm to Scruffy
quote:Why is this the case? The government would not force anyone to do anything in this case. The AZ Bill would simply codify the shop-owners right to deny service. How is that forcing anything?
You also believe that the proposed law would result in the government using their force to back those who wish to discriminate.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 12:59 pm to asurob1
quote:
You discriminate you don't get to do business in this country.
Like I said earlier, if this is the case then my local Muslim owned halal meat market had better sell me my Christmas ham.
If they refuse, I may have to sue.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:01 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:That isn't my stance. It is his.
Why is this the case? The government would not force anyone to do anything in this case. The AZ Bill would simply codify the shop-owners right to deny service. How is that forcing anything?
And if what he believes is true, there still exists an undefined situation where the government is neutral in these affairs. I would like someone who believes what I posted previously to describe that situation for me.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:01 pm to GumboPot
It is a matter of law and equality. You cannot discriminate in the matter of public access. You cannot say you do not serve blacks or Polish. However, it is your right not to carry any products that certain groups would want (Stupid business). it is Hobby store's right not to sell Chanukah stuff. it s Chik Fil A's right to mandate all franchisees close on Sunday just as it is B and H electronics right to close Saturday.
When I am hiring nurse, I cannot say that I do not hire Phillpino or African nurses or for that matter male nurses.
When I am hiring nurse, I cannot say that I do not hire Phillpino or African nurses or for that matter male nurses.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:02 pm to kingbob
quote:
Think about this: if you were gay, why would you want to buy a wedding cake from someone who hates gays and thinks they're icky and evil
Did I piss in the batter while making your cake?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
But hey...you have the cake the state forced me to bake you. Enjoy.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:02 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:Why not?
When I am hiring nurse, I cannot say that I do not hire Phillpino or African nurses or for that matter male nurses.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:04 pm to TrueTiger
Are not country clubs discriminatory businesses? I mean they discriminate against the poor with their high initiation fees. Why I want to play golf at Augusta too.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:04 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Why is this the case? The government would not force anyone to do anything in this case. The AZ Bill would simply codify the shop-owners right to deny service. How is that forcing anything?
That isn't my stance. It is his.
And if what he believes is true, there still exists an undefined situation where the government is neutral in these affairs. I would like someone who believes what I posted previously to describe that situation for me.
As I said in the other thread. This is the exact problem I have with it. The government should not be arranging shop-owners the right to deny service based on color, sex, or who you are having sex with under the guise of religious freedom.
If you don't understand just how big of an issue this can become quickly. Then I don't know what I can do to help you.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:05 pm to hawkeye007
quote:Why the hate of affirmative action?
bill that allows people to discriminate and any bill thats allows this is just wrong.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:05 pm to asurob1
I'm guessing Brewer vetoes the bill this week and the Dems will mutter "well, shite ..." under their collective breath. They want nothing more than for this bill to become another distraction from the real issues in an important election year.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:05 pm to asurob1
quote:
asurob1
Glad to see you didn't read the bill.
Actual Text
AZ Passes a bill that asurob1 didn't read. Bill says nothing about discriminate, just further defines the freedom of religion in the state of AZ. Way to blatantly accept any news from the left. I guess you could have also linked this equally stupid oversimplification and distortion of the law
Proposed Arizona Legislation to enact Sharia Law
Was it a toss up between which asinine left wing story you'd run with?
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:06 pm to asurob1
quote:So you're a Muslim hater.
As I said in the other thread. This is the exact problem I have with it. The government should not be arranging shop-owners the right to deny service based on color, sex, or who you are having sex with under the guise of religious freedom.
Fine, it is what it is I guess.
Page 16 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News