- 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
re: AZ Senate Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:24 pm to asurob1
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:24 pm to asurob1
quote:You are the one who does not understand and is beyond help because you refuse to acknowledge that rights do not come from Government.
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.
On the contrary, in this country the Government was explicitly formed to protects peoples natural and inherent unalienable rights, among which are the right to free association and freedom of conscience. And among which IS NOT the right to have a wedding cake. Such a right would be ridiculous on it's face, as would be some supposed unalienable natural right to purchase a cake.
But as I believe Scruffy is trying to point out, even if such ridiculous rights did exist, protecting the right to free association and freedom of conscience of others would not constitute a violation of such rights.
1
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:24 pm to asurob1
Come on, man. I'm not asking what is or isn't "fine". Why are you avoiding the question?
The system I want involves the government remaining a neutral party in these situations.
If the current system doesn't fulfill that requirement, and the proposed AZ law doesn't fulfill that requirement, there must be a hypothetical system that does.
Now, let's play a little game. Put your opinions of the current system aside and describe a system where governmental force and coercion isn't used for either side.
There must be a middle ground where no force is used either way.
The system I want involves the government remaining a neutral party in these situations.
If the current system doesn't fulfill that requirement, and the proposed AZ law doesn't fulfill that requirement, there must be a hypothetical system that does.
Now, let's play a little game. Put your opinions of the current system aside and describe a system where governmental force and coercion isn't used for either side.
There must be a middle ground where no force is used either way.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:24 pm to asurob1
I think Arizona athiests should protest this bill on the grounds it affords religious bidness folks rights that athiests won't have.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:30 pm to asurob1
quote:
Once again, this bill as written, gives any business owner the right to refuse service to anyone based on anything they decide.
If I don't like gingers...great...it's against my religion to seat you in my restaurant.
Well,such a policy would surredly offend gingers meaning that gingers would not do business with that restaurant. Many non-Gingers would see this policy as insane and would boycott the restaurant in protest of this weird discriminatory policy. The business owner will lose money (how much would be determined by how much of the current customer base is alienated by that action) and possibly go out of business. A comparable situation would be companies pulling their ads from a talk radio show after that radio host made offensive comments on the air. The offensive comments may have been within his rights, but those comments also drove away ad revenue, causing the station to lose money and possibly viewership. Such is the same for discrimination by businesses. Let the free market decide what is acceptable and let the government be free from having to deal with all the headaches.
Discrimination is generally a poor business practice by rule to to it automatically narrowing
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:31 pm to Scruffy
If you read the bill it appears pretty benign. There is no mention of gay. The objectionable part of the bill seems to be the part where the bill simply affirms religious freedom.
I guess this is the part that got the gay lobby all :omg::omg::omg:
quote:
"Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
I guess this is the part that got the gay lobby all :omg::omg::omg:
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:33 pm to asurob1
quote:A point rarely in evidence d/t your Christian bashing.
We both know I'm equal opportunity on my dislike of religions.
But fine then.
An atheist Polish cakemaker who lost her father and mother in concentration camps is told to make a cake honoring Nazi SS survivors. Same song different verse.
Here's the point, as Einstein put it, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
Substituting a circumstance in which a single private party might refuse an unpleasant service, with one where the government mandates such service be provided, is not an optimal solution in a free society.
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:33 pm to asurob1
quote:
Once again, this bill as written, gives any business owner the right to refuse service to anyone based on anything they decide.
Does a shop owner have the right to refuse service to someone without a shirt? " no shirt, no service?"
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:36 pm to GumboPot
That isn't what I'm trying to address here.
From this thread, it seems that we are only given two choices:
1. The status quo where government force is used.
2. This law where government force is used.
Why is it the case that government force is our only choice? There must be a situation/legislation that would be devoid of that force.
I want someone to describe that untouched situation for me. Someone on here should be able to do that.
From this thread, it seems that we are only given two choices:
1. The status quo where government force is used.
2. This law where government force is used.
Why is it the case that government force is our only choice? There must be a situation/legislation that would be devoid of that force.
I want someone to describe that untouched situation for me. Someone on here should be able to do that.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:37 pm to asurob1
quote:
asurob1
I keep coming back to the abortion issue because I know you're a supporter. Millions upon millions of people believe, and I think with some legitimacy, that it's morally wrong. Why should it be legal?
Further, regardless of one's beliefs about abortion pertaining to individual liberty, the fact of the matter is that these procedures are performed disproportionately on lower-income minorities. It is, in effect, responsible for millions of African-American children never being born. It is, directly or indirectly, one of the most discriminatory practices there is. Yet you are all for it and seem rather unmoved at the consequences abortion has had on the African-American community.
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:37 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
in this country the Government was explicitly formed to protects peoples natural and inherent unalienable rights, among which are the right to free association and freedom of conscience.
well there is the rub. as individuals we enjoy these rights. the proponents of this bill [and others like it] seem to want to extend said rights to businesses that serve the general public.
on the other hand, opponents of this bill simply want to extend the same protections enumerated in the CRA to gays.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:39 pm to Scruffy
quote:
I want someone to describe that untouched situation for me. Someone on here should be able to do that.
It's simple. The private business owner who isn't accepting gov. assistance or special tax breaks should be free to conduct their business in any way they see fit including the right to associate with anyone they choose. Or in this case, dissacociate with whoever they choose.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:43 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
quote:No, the owners of businesses we are discussing are individuals. My understanding is we are not talking about corporations or other limited liability partnerships - those are state sponsored institutions which the state can direct as they please, but a corner bakery owned by an individual is not.
want to extend said rights to businesses that serve the general public.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:48 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
No, the owners of businesses we are discussing are individuals. My understanding is we are not talking about corporations or other limited liability partnerships - those are state sponsored institutions which the state can direct as they please, but a corner bakery owned by an individual is not.
the corner bakery is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or religion per the civil rights act. it is not a radical step to extend those same protections to gays.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:50 pm to Scruffy
quote:
I want someone to describe that untouched situation for me. Someone on here should be able to do that.
We could just be nice to each other? I mean the religious baker could say to the gay couple, I respect your views and I also ask you to respect my beliefs. Please don't ask me to bake a gay cake. If I have to bake a gay cake you will not like it. It won't be by best work. I fact it will be quite shitty.
Then the gay couple has one of two choices, while the catcher throws his finger in the air, "I respect your beliefs too and we will take our business elsewhere" or "f' you Mr. Baker Man. We are going to sue you. You are discriminating against my civil rights." Walks off shaking his arse in tight red leather pants turn to the baker and says, "you'll be seeing my lawyer".
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:54 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
quote:
it is not a radical step to extend those same protections to gays.
It was a radical step to water down freedom of association to begin with.
It is time to start a dialogue about restoring this freedom.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:54 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
Bunsburt applause that's the crux right there. If you are a business serving the public, you must serve all individuals. We reserve the right is 1950.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:56 pm to GoBigOrange86
quote:
I keep coming back to the abortion issue because I know you're a supporter. Millions upon millions of people believe, and I think with some legitimacy, that it's morally wrong. Why should it be legal?
Making someone a sandwich in a place of business that has to follow the rules of law is not equal in anyway to abortion.
Nice stretch though.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 1:56 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
quote:The issue is that some of us disagree with the CRA in that regard.
the corner bakery is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or religion per the civil rights act. it is not a radical step to extend those same protections to gays.
The problem with saying that is that you are instantly labeled a racist or bigot, despite your reasoning. I could then say that I wouldn't discriminate, but because of my previous statement, any further comments would be considered a lie merely on the grounds that disagreeing with any elements of the CRA, despite your reasoning, means that you are a racist.
The whole discussion is pretty much one-sided with one group calling the other group racists and bigots.
Sadly, this topic falls under the umbrella of things it is impossible to have a discussion about. Preconceived notions are tough to overcome.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 2:00 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
quote:Must the corner Jewish Deli serve ham and cheese sandwiches because a Christian patron insists they have a right to a ham sandwich. Or must the corner diner serve corned beef or pastrami instead of ham if a Jewish patron insists they have a right to buy a hot pastrami sandwich?
the corner bakery is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or religion per the civil rights act.
The issue is not simply serving folks, it's serving things you object to on moral or ethical grounds.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 2:01 pm to asurob1
quote:
Nice stretch though.
Yeah. This is the response I expected. Dodge without answering the question.
You'd make a fantastic pundit.
Page 18 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News