|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 9, 2011 15:17:07 GMT -5
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." and 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. Both of your arguments seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, to revolve around the fact that discrimination based on sexual orientation is an unacceptable behavior. If the government is getting in the job of regulating morals who is the say that laws against other unacceptable behaviors should not be made. More importantly who's gets to say what is unacceptable? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 9, 2011 15:32:32 GMT -5
The people through their government in the manner prescribed by law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 16:03:45 GMT -5
The question is what right does the state have to take a stand against discrimination when it comes to private ventures? Private ventures ostensibly open to the public, mind. We're not talking about Vermont curbstomping you if you want to open a private "no faggitz aloud" club. We've still got ourselves a few of those around here. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 16:05:04 GMT -5
If the government is getting in the job of regulating morals who is the say that laws against other unacceptable behaviors should not be made. More importantly who's gets to say what is unacceptable? You're not seriously pulling a slippery slope here, are you? |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Aug 9, 2011 16:28:09 GMT -5
If the government is getting in the job of regulating morals who is the say that laws against other unacceptable behaviors should not be made. More importantly who's gets to say what is unacceptable? You're not seriously pulling a slippery slope here, are you? Okay so I'm not the only one who read it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 9, 2011 17:22:49 GMT -5
There are two issues here- the right of a buisness to do whatever it wants and the right of people to live in a society that doesn't discriminate against them baselessly. 'Cept the first one isn't a right and never should be. The idea is to take them at face value. Even if you accept glibertarianism as a starting point, this should still be legally wrong due to conflict of rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 17:27:11 GMT -5
I've always found it weird that in a libertarian world, you don't actually have the right to buy stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 10, 2011 7:26:17 GMT -5
The people through their government in the manner prescribed by law. So then it would be fine for the people to decide that homosexual activity is unacceptable? I don't think most here would agree to that. I do agree, for the most part with the anti-discrimination laws. I'm just not going to pretend that they don't limit the rights of business owners and as such may not be as moral as we make them out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 9:32:56 GMT -5
The people have this power, but they would have to amend the Constitution to do it.
On the other hand, you do not have a constitutional right as a business owner to discriminate against any class designated by law, as the government has the full power to regulate commerce.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 10, 2011 9:48:21 GMT -5
The people have this power, but they would have to amend the Constitution to do it. ....and if they did would you find that acceptable? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 10:11:42 GMT -5
No I wouldn't, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a right to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 10, 2011 11:25:02 GMT -5
No I wouldn't, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a right to do it. Why do I have the feeling that if stomping babies were compulsory you'd be onboard? Yegads, I can't press on this line of thought without crossing into "other thread" territory. however, I ove the notion that homosexuals being discriminated against requires revision of the constitution, but you can take the rights away from inbreeders because ew flipper babies. ...Which still boils down to the same sort of bull conservatives use to argue against homosexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 11:47:08 GMT -5
We're already discussing the difference between gay people and incest practicers on another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 10, 2011 11:58:15 GMT -5
No I wouldn't, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a right to do it. Your right. I don't think anyone is arguing what the law says. The argument is should the law say what is does. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 10, 2011 12:26:36 GMT -5
Yes the law should be there. Since the Civil Rights Movement, our society has generally adopted the philosophy that we should judge others by their actions, and not on any intrinsic quality of their individual selves. This is a philosophy I agree with. The people of Vermont do not want to live in a community where hateful and hurtful actions against gay people are put on equal footing with this philosophy, and I do not blame them for this.
|
|
