- 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 2/20/14 at 8:46 pm to asurob1
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:46 pm to asurob1
quote:
The fact is this bill elevates the religious beliefs of some above the civil rights of others. And if signed means you can violate those civil rights with the help of your friendly arizona government. Just another black eye for the state.
Purchasing a product or being given employment in the private sector is not a civil right and should not be.
Why do you hate private property rights and freedom to make your own business choices without gov't interference?
0
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:46 pm to asurob1
quote:
As written, the bill will allow a muslim tax cab driver to refuse to drive a woman who is alone to her destination.
If it were put in these terms Obama himself would break his fricking hand to sign the bill.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:47 pm to Scruffy
quote:
As written, the bill will allow a muslim tax cab driver to refuse to drive a woman who is alone to her destination.
So?
Exactly, the cab driver will lose that potential business and word of mouth will spread that he hates women. Men and women alike will boycott him and he'll go out of business. Usually, the government is protecting that misogynist asshat by forcing him to cater to everyone, keeping him in business. By freeing him to make his own bad decisions, he fails by his own merit, allowing him to suffer for being the a-hole that he is.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:48 pm to asurob1
Actually my neighborhood is fairly diverse. We just don't allow trashy thugs here.
What's your next argument or do you actually want to address the point I made?
What's your next argument or do you actually want to address the point I made?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:50 pm to asurob1
quote:
The fact is this bill elevates the religious beliefs of some above the civil rights of others.
Not being offended is not a civil right.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:50 pm to asurob1
quote:
No they aren't forcing them to discriminate. They are telling them it's okay if they do and no legal action can occur to prevent said discriminatory practices.
If I don't want to sell my house to you because you know, talking to guys with bushy mustaches is against my religion...well hell now it's game on which is counter to the Fair Housing Discrimination act.
Who do you think trumps in that one the feds or the state?
Because it's your shite and we're grown ups and such.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:52 pm to asurob1
quote:
Why am I not surprised that you are okay with discrimination?
Of course I morally have a problem with discrimination but I'm thinking clearly about this.
As long it's not done by the gov't with public funding and/or public facilities and employees (which is what Jim crow was) and restricted to the private sector, I don't care about it. The last thing you want gov't doing is interfering in private lives.
Gov't should not be obligated to make us all hold hands and sing kumbaya.
quote:
You are a better person then this. You damn well know what this is about.
Rob, I could say the same for you.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:53 pm to kingbob
quote:
Exactly, the cab driver will lose that potential business and word of mouth will spread that he hates women. Men and women alike will boycott him and he'll go out of business. Usually, the government is protecting that misogynist asshat by forcing him to cater to everyone, keeping him in business. By freeing him to make his own bad decisions, he fails by his own merit, allowing him to suffer for being the a-hole that he is.
Well that is one scenario. It is also possible that people who DO NOT WANT TO SHARE CABS WITH WOMEN would utilize his service for that very reason. Rather than term him a "misogynist asshat" or assume the worst about a person's intentions we could just avoid using services we don't like.
ETA: I just realized how dickish I sounded there. What I mean to say is that it isn't inherently wrong to discriminate and segregate. There are times which I might not wish to be people of a certain type or nature. For instance, a hunting trip, or at an athletic club, or maybe even at work. I fail to see how there is anything "asshatish" about this sentiment.
This post was edited on 2/20/14 at 9:02 pm
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:56 pm to asurob1
quote:
asurob1
I feel we have some sort of mutual respect for each other. Maybe I'm off.
In the same way we wouldn't want to legislate what comes in and out of someone's body(in regards to abortion and drugs), why would we want to legislate what someone does what their property?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 8:56 pm to asurob1
quote:
Someone probably needs to brush up on Fair Housing Laws.
That someone would be you. Guys with bushy mustaches are not a protected class under fair housing laws. Now, if a guy with a bushy mustache brings you a full price offer and you say no, your real estate agent has the right to force you to pay the commission.
You also don't need a federal Fair Housing Act to prevent discrimination. Discrimination is a very serious violation of the realtor code of ethics.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:00 pm to asurob1
Damn it, I demand my gay Budweiser.
Equal rights.
Equal rights.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:00 pm to asurob1
quote:
The fact is this bill elevates the religious beliefs of some above the civil rights of others. And if signed means you can violate those civil rights with the help of your friendly arizona government. Just another black eye for the state.
This law will be struck down in very short order. Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit and there is no way it will be allowed to stand. The Ninth Circuit ruled that "heightened scrutiny" must be applied to gay discrimination cases in a ruling a few weeks ago. This essentially puts gays into a protected class.
I do agree this makes the GOP look very bad. Passing Jim Crow Laws in 2014 is not a good way to portray itself as a welcoming and tolerant party.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:01 pm to asurob1
quote:
Did you really use a picture of the government forcing itself onto private businesses as an argument that the government should be allowed to force itself onto businesses?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:01 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Well that is one scenario. It is also possible that people who DO NOT WANT TO SHARE CABS WITH WOMEN would utilize his service for that very reason. Rather than term him a "misogynist asshat" or assume the worst about a person's intentions we could just avoid using services we don't like.
Don't overreact. I was trying to sell the point that discriminatory actions have consequences in the court of public opinion. The descriptions I was using are meant to evoke the kinds of public backlash those decision-makers would have to be prepared to receive. Of course, discrimination could, in some circumstances, lead to more profitable outcomes. In that case, it's more of an indictment of the culture being discriminated against than the owner doing the discriminating.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:03 pm to Toddy
quote:
I do agree this makes the GOP look very bad. Passing Jim Crow Laws in 2014 is not a good way to portray itself as a welcoming and tolerant party.
They're not.
But, let me offer something to you.
Wouldn't you rather know who was for you and who was against you? Wouldn't it be easier than businesses hiding behind the rule of law?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:05 pm to kingbob
quote:
Don't overreact. I was trying to sell the point that discriminatory actions have consequences in the court of public opinion. The descriptions I was using are meant to evoke the kinds of public backlash those decision-makers would have to be prepared to receive. Of course, discrimination could, in some circumstances, lead to more profitable outcomes. In that case, it's more of an indictment of the culture being discriminated against than the owner doing the discriminating.
I edited my earlier post because I realized how much of an a-hole I sounded like after I re-read it.
I don't think discrimination is inherently bad. I can think of a few situations off hand which I make conscious decisions to surround myself with people of like mind and intent. I have a hard time seeing this as some sort of indictment of culture.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:05 pm to Toddy
quote:
Passing Jim Crow Laws in 2014 is not a good way to portray itself as a welcoming and tolerant party.
You don't know what Jim Crow is.
Do any people really have even the slightest frick of an idea what the frick Jim crow laws were?
I'm about to go crazy with these dumbass comparisons.
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:06 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
Wouldn't you rather know who was for you and who was against you?
Not really following you. Are you saying businesses should put up "No Gays Served Here" signs?
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:06 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
Wouldn't you rather know who was for you and who was against you? Wouldn't it be easier than businesses hiding behind the rule of law?
Exactly. Why would say, gay rights supports and gays want to give money to a bigot anyway? Seems like they would want to spend their dollars with gay-friendly businesses
Posted on 2/20/14 at 9:07 pm to Toddy
quote:
I do agree this makes the GOP look very bad. Passing Jim Crow Laws in 2014 is not a good way to portray itself as a welcoming and tolerant party.
This isn't a jim crow law. I don't think you know what jim crow laws were Jim crow according to wiki
There is literally no comparison between the two concepts.
Page 6 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News