|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Aug 9, 2011 10:39:21 GMT -5
Uh, Fred? I think you missed the part where I specifically mentioned that it's already legislated. It's a non-issue; Regardless of what people actually feel is right or wrong, the business did not have the legal right to deny service on the grounds of sexual orientation. Regardless of what a libertarian may have to say on the matter. They have a way around that, too. To whit- some laws are wrong. Might does not make right. And I respond as Amaranth responded to Adeimantus: In case this is too hard for you to understand: We've already decided that it is illegal for a private business to do this. I don't why this situation should be any different. There is no difference between the Jim Crow laws' "White Trade Only" and these people's "Straight Trade Only." Even if it legitimately made them uncomfortable (which I don't understand - it's not like they're having their honeymoon there), they still have no excuse. They could have handled it with tact, and just bit their tongues when they came. They could have politely notified the couple that they're uncomfortable, and asked politely that they find another location, while pointing out that they could still come if need be. They could have handled it in a multitude of different ways, and they didn't. They handled it the bigoted way, which happens to be illegal in Vermont. |
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Aug 9, 2011 11:36:20 GMT -5
There is no difference between the Jim Crow laws' "White Trade Only" and these people's "Straight Trade Only." So it's part of a systematic scheme to keep gays in poverty and remove any chance they have to influence government? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 9, 2011 12:01:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Aug 9, 2011 12:37:59 GMT -5
There is no difference between the Jim Crow laws' "White Trade Only" and these people's "Straight Trade Only." So it's part of a systematic scheme to keep gays in poverty and remove any chance they have to influence government? Good point. The idea behind it is the same, though: discrimination against the people we don't like, by denying them the same rights we give to the people we do like. In intent, yes. In practice... HELLO, SIGN. Let's roll with this idea, that denying service based on personal beliefs (in this case, denying gays the right to a wedding reception based on Catholic belief) is a fair exercise of free speech. What then stops people from denying service based on race, ethnicity, or gender? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 9, 2011 12:53:45 GMT -5
In intent, yes. In practice... HELLO, SIGN. ...and depending on the place and time even during the Jim Crow day that very well could have been illegal. Let's roll with this idea, that denying service based on personal beliefs (in this case, denying gays the right to a wedding reception based on Catholic belief) is a fair exercise of free speech. What then stops people from denying service based on race, ethnicity, or gender? Other then the laws, nothing! As ltfred argued, at what point do the rights of individuals looking for a service out weigh the rights of a business owner to run his business as he sees fit? Yes, to a lot of people that seems obvious. To others not so much. This issue is not to far away from the Pharmacies not filling prescriptions for emergency birth control. |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Aug 9, 2011 12:54:08 GMT -5
The forcing of businesses to serve everyone equally is the state's way of taking a stand against discrimination (same with hate crimes legislation) and, in addition to crushing segregation in the private sector, makes it known that our official policy is that refusing to provide services to people based on religious affiliation, race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, disability, etc. is not OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Aug 9, 2011 13:03:31 GMT -5
But, isn't denial of service part of "separate but equal"? If there were a white business and a black business, and non-whites were forced to go to the black business only, wouldn't that mean they were denied service (or would be denied service) at the white business? I'm not sure if I could separate the two. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 9, 2011 13:27:45 GMT -5
The question is what right does the state have to take a stand against discrimination when it comes to private ventures?
|
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Aug 9, 2011 13:41:56 GMT -5
The question is what right does the state have to take a stand against discrimination when it comes to private ventures? Not sure if that were addressed to me or not. At any rate I think the government has every right to take a stand against discrimination in the private sector. I see nothing wrong with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and bans on housing discrimination. Clearly this isn't unique--the government regulates private businesses all the time when it comes to child labor laws and laws regulating pollutants. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 9, 2011 14:07:55 GMT -5
Not sure if that were addressed to me or not. At any rate I think the government has every right to take a stand against discrimination in the private sector. I see nothing wrong with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and bans on housing discrimination. Clearly this isn't unique--the government regulates private businesses all the time when it comes to child labor laws and laws regulating pollutants. Yes, it was addressed to you. Your right it is not unique, however those examples, housing discrimination, child labor laws, law regulating pollutants all have there own reasons for the state to take interest other then a stance on peoples attitudes towards others. House Discrimination can very much cause an increase in the homeless population, if it were widespread. Child Labor, children are not reconsider as adults and are not able to stand up for themselves of recognize dangers that can be present on a job. Pollutants can very much effect everyone. What harm is caused by allowing a business such as the Inn not to host gay wedding receptions? True, the gay couple will have to find another place to have their reception, but that is little different then if the Inn was already booked, or not there at all. |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Aug 9, 2011 14:14:34 GMT -5
Not sure if that were addressed to me or not. At any rate I think the government has every right to take a stand against discrimination in the private sector. I see nothing wrong with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and bans on housing discrimination. Clearly this isn't unique--the government regulates private businesses all the time when it comes to child labor laws and laws regulating pollutants. Yes, it was addressed to you. Your right it is not unique, however those examples, housing discrimination, child labor laws, law regulating pollutants all have there own reasons for the state to take interest other then a stance on peoples attitudes towards others. House Discrimination can very much cause an increase in the homeless population, if it were widespread. Child Labor, children are not reconsider as adults and are not able to stand up for themselves of recognize dangers that can be present on a job. Pollutants can very much effect everyone. What harm is caused by allowing a business such as the Inn not to host gay wedding receptions? True, the gay couple will have to find another place to have their reception, but that is little different then if the Inn was already booked, or not there at all. I think being turned away by a business for an innate characteristic is a harm in and of itself--especially for a group that already faces widespread discrimination. If the Inn was already booked or not there at all, there would be no discrimination, so I think that's very different from being told, in effect, "We don't serve your kind." |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 9, 2011 14:16:50 GMT -5
You're right, I apologize for that. I was feeling a bit vindictive. That being said, some say that turnabout is fair play, eh? I guess that person needs to be punched in the gut. Following up a pot shot with another pot shot? Awesome. When I don't respond to any more of your posts because I'm ignoring your stupid ass, keep that in mind instead of whining how unfair it is or how evil I am or blaming it on my life instead of your idiocy. Since I know you will do the latter, because I'm the one of us with pattern recognition. Now, you might say announcing to someone you're ignoring them is childish. And ignoring the fundamental slowness of the target, I say you're right. But then, turnabout's fair play, MI RITE Hmm, I do distinctly remembering saying that the person who first said that "turnabout is fair play" should be punched. All I was saying is that two wrongs don't make a right, and I recognize that now. As such, I will be ceasing the potshots. ...Which you immediately took as a potshot. Splendid. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 9, 2011 14:19:44 GMT -5
The harm is that it legitimizes the opinion that it is acceptable behavior to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. States have the right to regulate intrastate commerce (including acceptable business practices) and society has the right to use that power of the government to regulate what it deems acceptable and not acceptable public behavior by those engaging in commerce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adeimantus on Aug 9, 2011 14:35:20 GMT -5
This is exactly what I hoped to see: people intelligently discussing a controversy rather than trying to intimidate those they disagree with into shutting up by implicitly associating them with racism and hatred.
I like a lot of what’s been said on both sides; some good points have been made. I think Itfred captured the heart of the issue when he said, “There are two issues here- the right of a business to do whatever it wants and the right of people to live in a society that doesn't discriminate against them baselessly.” One side is maintaining that a business, as an enterprise owned and operated by an individual, is subject to that individual’s own preferences, desires, judgments, and choices, whatever they may be. Another side is arguing that since such choices may include immoral actions such as prejudice, bigotry, racism, and accordingly harmful actions such as denial of service, that we ought to use the government to preventively force individuals from engaging in such behaviors (or at least in the business sector).
That’s about the way I see the matter, at least. On the one hand we have the view that, although people may choose to do immoral things with their lives and their property to the point that they engage in vile behavior such as racism, it is nonetheless their business if they choose to do so, so long as they do not actively and directly harm someone else or attempt to enforce their beliefs on other’s lives and property. On the other hand is the fear that if we allow everyone to do and believe just whatever they want, even with the restrictions that the government will not prefer or deter any one of those beliefs or actions, and will continue to do as it already does and crack down on any person or organization that resorts to violence, fraud, or coercion in the support of its beliefs, that if we do this, the result will be an evil, unjust society in which a majority of bigots will unite to lock their chosen targets out of society, government, and the economy.
That’s my thinking, at least. I’ll come back later and expand on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Aug 9, 2011 14:55:22 GMT -5
This is exactly what I hoped to see: people intelligently discussing a controversy rather than trying to intimidate those they disagree with into shutting up by implicitly associating them with racism and hatred. Don't go to the mainpage for a reasoned discussion. You'll be disappointed. |
|
