They can come to Omaha. We'll have all that stuff sorted out shortly.
While I disagree with the notion that anyone should be refused a certain service, in most cases at least, I do believe that business owners are entitled to refuse service to whoever they want. Whether or not it is something of a d*** move is beside the point, because if a person builds up a business and has to pay the exorbitant taxes that entails both for their business AND the income they make off of it, I believe they have the right to run it as they wish.
That said, I believe that certain provisions need to be made in the bill where places such as hospitals and grocery stores cannot refuse service, because those are pretty much essential for homeostasis these days due to a lack of medical knowledge and knowing how to grow one's own food supply.
All in all, I think anyone refusing service to anyone else for anything but an actual religious service is somewhat of a d*** move, but I also think that it is their prerogative one way or the other, so long as it does not endanger another person.
It is not a government's place to regulate such a thing, whether on a state or federal level. America IS supposed to be a land of freedom, after all.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm just a bit confused, because nobody supporting the bill has responded to this point except to claim "strawmanning".
Are the people in favor of this bill also in favor of repealing the parts of the 14th Amendment that keep businesses from banning non-whites from their establishments?
Give us something substantial to back these claims. All I see is interpretation. Give specific examples of why these legislators and governor want to legalize gay discrimination.I think you're wrong about the intent. I think the intent is pretty clearly to allow open discrimination against gays, not just the kind of examples you approve of.
The effects of the law as written are obvious and there has been the opportunity to do as you suggested and narrow it. As far as I can tell, the legislature and the governor want the broad law.
It is pretty well known this (and similar efforts in other states) is a response to cases like:
Some bakeries and same sex marriages.Some florists and same sex marriages.
Some photographers and same sex marriages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm just a bit confused, because nobody supporting the bill has responded to this point except to claim "strawmanning".
Are the people in favor of this bill also in favor of repealing the parts of the 14th Amendment that keep businesses from banning non-whites from their establishments?
Need it be an all or none situation? Could a Jewish photographer be willing to work with Christians in general, but refuse to photograph a baptism specifically and it still be okay with the 14th Amendment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give specific examples of why these legislators and governor want to legalize gay discrimination.They are christian fundamentalists.
Preaching politics from the pulpit and voting in droves. We have tons of them, and they're uniformly ignorant and bigoted.
Need it be an all or none situation? Could a Jewish photographer be willing to work with Christians in general, but refuse to photograph a baptism specifically and it still be okay with the 14th Amendment?So I'm just a bit confused, because nobody supporting the bill has responded to this point except to claim "strawmanning".
Are the people in favor of this bill also in favor of repealing the parts of the 14th Amendment that keep businesses from banning non-whites from their establishments?
It's a question of equivalency. Why is okay to discriminate against this group but not that group?
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".
Which, aside from the reasons given, is exactly what people used to do to certain other groups. There was no, "Look, my restaurant won't serve black people celebrating Kwanzaa, but we'll be happy to serve everyone else." Sure, an exception might exist, but that exception is insignificant when the bill isn't explicitly only allowing said exception (an exception which would be rather difficult to include).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should a private business be able to discriminate against a US citizen and still have their goods or inventory transported across tax payer funded roads, or hire people educated in a tax payer funded school, deposit their money in a federally backed bank, etc.?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".
Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly a lot of people here are unfamiliar with the history of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.
Have you wondered where all of those "Whites Only" signs have gone? It wasn't the so-called free markets. It was the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Actually it was the Civil Rights Act which was found Constitutional by reference to The Commerce Clause.
That said, it is interesting how many of the arguments against equal treatment for LGBT folks are the same as those used in opposition to equal rights for African Anericans in the 1960s. Including but not limited to religious claims....
Churches that proudly support unequal rights for LGBT folks based on religion would be aghast at using it to deny people of other colors. What changed was 50 years of normalization after the Civil Rights Act.
I suspect we will need Federal Legislation to address this as well.
I sense we're about to move into a "politican correctness" discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If those uppity gays hadn't demanded to be treated like normal people we wouldn't have needed to pass laws letting us discriminate against them. We could have just continued doing so without any new laws.I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.
And again, I would ask, if a Jewish photographer was willing to take pictures of Christians in all kinds of settings (graduations, weddings, family gatherings, etc.), but wasn't willing to take pictures of a baptism, would that mean they weren't treating Christians "like normal people". Does it have to be 100% or 0%? I am not talking about this law specifically, just our society in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expecting the free market to weed out charlatans -- especially before they do plenty of damage -- simply isn't realistic in a modern, hyper-specialized economy. Most consumers lack the means, time, or ability to perform, say, independent trials of experimental drugs. That's why we have an FDA.
Why is this even a discussion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).I mustn't have been paying attention. What's going on over here? What's Australia going to look like in 20 years, apart form being more crowded and sun-blasted?
If things keep going the way they're going, with people advocating (and getting bills passed for) censorship, with broad restrictions on entertainment and speech, pretty damn bad.
Wouldn't that still be prohibited under the federal Civil Rights Act?Can I ban Christians from my establishment due to serving them being against my religious principles?Theoretically, yes.
I was under the impression that the whole point of this law was to take precedent over that. Otherwise it would truly do nothing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The right to refuse service to gays is like the right to refuse service to black people, or women, or old people. That is, for the good of society it must give way to people's right to be treated equally. Sure, you can refuse service to anyone for no reason, but you can't refuse service to someone on the basis of race, age, sex, or other protected class. Of course, the ultimate (and obvious) answer to the inevitable "sexual orientation isn't a protected class" response is to simply make sexual orientation a federally protected class. It's only a matter of time, so let's just do it already.
Edit: Some people are arguing that we have effectively already done so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know. Does that happen?
Not really relevant, we are talking about the implication of these laws and approaches. What is your opinion, should our hypothetical photographer be forced by the long arm of the law to have to work baptisms or be sued possibly to the point of closing of their business?
Do you really think that if the gay agenda had only gone as far as marriage, but not bothered the bakers, photographers and florists, everybody would have been happy and there wouldn't have been any backlash?
Any backlash? Sure there would be backlash (and has been), but it would have been different backlash.
This is not the first speech restriction Australia has gotten. Read the article. Any language that "might offend" someone is also punishable by law.
Then look at their restrictions on "morally objectionable' content in movies, books, and video games. Violence, sex, strong language, etc. are all banned or highly restricted.
And of course, they want every other country on Earth to sign on board with those restrictions, so their citizens no longer have the option to digitally "import" them from other places.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, I would ask, if a Jewish photographer was willing to take pictures of Christians in all kinds of settings (graduations, weddings, family gatherings, etc.), but wasn't willing to take pictures of a baptism, would that mean they weren't treating Christians "like normal people". Does it have to be 100% or 0%? I am not talking about this law specifically, just our society in general.If those uppity gays hadn't demanded to be treated like normal people we wouldn't have needed to pass laws letting us discriminate against them. We could have just continued doing so without any new laws.I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.I don't know. Does that happen?
IDK - are the people in question (aka the "bigots") refusing service to gay people in total or refusing to provide services for a religious function that they disagree with on the grounds of their personal faith (gay marriage)?
In the case with the bakers - are they refusing to sell a chocolate éclair to their gay clientele or telling them that they cannot sit as a couple in their dining area and eat their éclair's together?
Or are they refusing to put two grooms on a custom made wedding cake - refusing to make a specific cake design?
And if that freedom means that certain people are free to live in poverty because others won't hire them or only live in the bad part of town because people elsewhere won't sell or rent to them or all the other abuse that we've seen happen when the government doesn't interfere with your precious "freedom" to discriminate, that's just the price they have to pay. And of course they'll pay it, not us.
'Precious freedom'? So you support the government invading the lives of its citizens and dictating how they live their lives? I personally do not care for federalism or statism, because we've all seen where those things eventually lead: dictatorships where morality is forced and citizens have to cleave to the societal norms or risk state action. The government was founded to protect the rights of its citizens, not to dictate morality. There IS a difference.
And really? "due to a lack of medical knowledge and knowing how to grow one's own food supply"? You don't need a hospital due to a lack of medical knowledge. All the medical knowledge in the world doesn't help you do self surgery or whip up your own prescription meds. Even doctors go to the hospital when they need to.
Same with food, it's not that people don't know how to grow food, though that might be true. Farming is full time work and requires land. It's far more efficient to not have everyone doing their own subsistence agriculture.
I view medical knowledge as something that should be a requirement in school curriculums. I see no point in teaching children several things in school while abandoning something as practical as medicine. Of course, I have seen situations where on-the-spot medical care from someone off-duty saved a person that would have otherwise died on the way to the hospital, so I suppose experience is something that allows me to say that. Why not replace something completely unused in most people's life, like trigonometry or geometry, with medical courses on things like trauma surgery or some such courses? If medical knowledge were widespread, would it not be safe to assume that actual medical schools would be far less exclusive, it would not require as much of an investment of time and money, and, therefore, would likely be a more appealing choice for a career path, resulting in more actual doctors.
As for medicine, those are not as complex to whip up as people think. Oh sure, you can make the claim that it is beyond most people, but do some research and you will see how easy it is to make your own. Most of the ingredients are easily obtainable by purchasing materials and extracting the necessary chemicals from them.
I believe that, as a person with a great deal of medical knowledge and training, I can make those statements.
As for the food situation, note that you yourself said that it is more EFFICIENT to grow it and then sell it through grocery stores. I was never disputing that point. Most people, however, have no idea how to grow a garden of food or raise animals. I myself only have limited knowledge in this area, something I have chided myself for in the past.
I do not even know why you disputed these things, because I said these services should not be those where people can make the choice to deny service. I also said that people who deny people services for anything other than a concrete, realistic reason, such as religious-based refusal of services, are just being d***s about it.
As for the Commerce Clause, that was intended as something for BETWEEN states, not WITHIN them, if you look at it contextually. There is quite a bit of difference there in how modern people perceive it to operate and how it was actually intended to operate.
If things keep going the way they're going, with people advocating (and getting bills passed for) censorship, with broad restrictions on entertainment and speech, pretty damn bad.
For example.
^^^ What he said! This is precisely what I am speaking of. Thank you Rynjin for pointing that out.
EDIT: I have nothing against homosexuals, transgendered individuals, ect and several of my friends happen to be one of these categories, so do not presume I have some agenda. I just believe that it is not a government's place to tell someone how to run their business unless it harms someone else, as is the case with oil companies fracking and allowing benzene gas, among other things, to leak out and affect other people. There is quite a bit of difference between refusing to sell a cake/bouquet/whatever for religious reasons and refusing to take into account another person's health and well-being solely due to greed.
There is quite a bit of difference between refusing to sell a cake/bouquet/whatever for religious reasons and refusing to take into account another person's health and well-being solely due to greed.
And if my religion sanctifies wealth, am I then justified in "refusing to take into account another person's health and well-being?" You know, as opposed to run-of-the-mill, secular greed...
Dude, first off yanking pointy objects out of parts of your anatomy yourself is damned hard (this is not a hypothetical statement on my part). Secondly emergency medical medicine is entirely reliant on getting them to actual medical personnel in a hurry. Your chances of getting someone back with cpr are pretty slim. Your chances of getting them back with cpr if the nearest hospitals "don't serve their kind here" is lower than the odds of getting hit in the head by a meteor while winning the lottery. Most importantly, it doesn't matter how much medical "knowledge" you have, if you don't have a sterile environment, the right drugs, a few extra pair of well washed hands, the machine that goes ping, an IV bag, and most importantly the right drugs. You cannot just make these yourself and keep them on hand. Plastic tubes for example have an expiration date and if they go past that they'll snap, break, or leak plastic bits into places you probably don't want it.
Its possible I might be convinced that big government is worse than letting a racist biggot not serve people in a restaurant, but telling someone to suck it up and treat their own heart attack? I can't tell if you're pushing Poes law or reality is unrealistic. If you were presented as a 1950s villian i would demand my money back for shoddy writing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not the first speech restriction Australia has gotten. Read the article. Any language that "might offend" someone is also punishable by law.
Then look at their restrictions on "morally objectionable' content in movies, books, and video games. Violence, sex, strong language, etc. are all banned or highly restricted.
And of course, they want every other country on Earth to sign on board with those restrictions, so their citizens no longer have the option to digitally "import" them from other places.
It's a balancing act - it's about inciting hatred... If what you are printing or showing is not targeting a group in a way that incites violence or hatred.. Then there is no problem.
It doesn't stop Joe Bloggs mouthing off in the street about bloody "Asians or Muslims or women or QUILTBAG people."
We also a Christian fundi for a PM (d&!~$ead is on his way out) and that steers the censorship .
Also censorship is state based and some states are more strict than others and have influence over decisions.
Australia is very complex - while there are similarities ( we borrowed some parts of your federal system) we also have a big chunk of the Westminster system, which works off established common law rather than a bill of rights.
So nah yeh nah..... In answer to your statement Rinjin.
"A fair go for all" is the average Australians motto.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I have nothing against homosexuals, transgendered individuals, ect and several of my friends happen to be one of these categories,
Ladies and gentlemen, the cherry on the cheesecake!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure If I'm understanding correctly what you are saying.America is not a democracy precisely for that reason. "Tyranny of the majority" was accounted for at our founding.
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.
Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.
He's saying that individuals have rights that the majority can't simply take away by a 51% majority (at least in theory)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expecting the free market to weed out charlatans -- especially before they do plenty of damage -- simply isn't realistic in a modern, hyper-specialized economy. Most consumers lack the means, time, or ability to perform, say, independent trials of experimental drugs. That's why we have an FDA.
Well said. Something I expound upon in my weekly medication groups.
And if my religion sanctifies wealth, am I then justified in "refusing to take into account another person's health and well-being?" You know, as opposed to run-of-the-mill, secular greed...
No, because that is the person's health and well-being you are infringing upon. You can jest and deliberately misinterpret what I say, but I see no reason why it is necessary, unless one is going by the standard internet practice of being facetious.
Dude, first off yanking pointy objects out of parts of your anatomy yourself is damned hard (this is not a hypothetical statement on my part). Secondly emergency medical medicine is entirely reliant on getting them to actual medical personnel in a hurry. Your chances of getting someone back with cpr are pretty slim. Your chances of getting them back with cpr if the nearest hospitals "don't serve their kind here" is lower than the odds of getting hit in the head by a meteor while winning the lottery. Most importantly, it doesn't matter how much medical "knowledge" you have, if you don't have a sterile environment, the right drugs, a few extra pair of well washed hands, the machine that goes ping, an IV bag, and most importantly the right drugs. You cannot just make these yourself and keep them on hand. Plastic tubes for example have an expiration date and if they go past that they'll snap, break, or leak plastic bits into places you probably don't want it.
Its possible I might be convinced that big government is worse than letting a racist biggot not serve people in a restaurant, but telling someone to suck it up and treat their own heart attack? I can't tell if you're pushing Poes law or reality is unrealistic. If you were presented as a 1950s villian i would demand my money back for shoddy writing.
Again, not reading what I said. What I said was that medical services should NOT deny under these grounds. That would be apparent if you were not taking the time to compare me to, quote, a 1950's villain. Again, read what I said. If this were a society where medical knowledge was widespread and the tools were readily available in the populace, my statement about not seeking hospital treatment would be valid. Hence why I stated that, again, MEDICAL SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF THOSE COVERED IN THE BILL.
Since a civil conversation cannot be had online without people deliberately taking what one says out of context, being fascetious and sarcastic of opinions differing from there own, and otherwise not contributing to the conversation at large without displaying some manner of civility, I will withdraw from this thread.
Did Divinitus just tell us to synthesize our own drugs? o.0
Who's worked in a lab here? -raises hand-
Even making pharmaceutical grade aspirin to the proper dose isn't trivial. I don't have the lab equipment laying about. The common citizen certainly doesn't. Great smoking FSM. Cannot tell if trolling…Poe's Law in full effect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since a civil conversation cannot be had online without people deliberately taking what one says out of context, being fascetious and sarcastic of opinions differing from there own, and otherwise not contributing to the conversation at large without displaying some manner of civility, I will withdraw from this thread.
Welcome to the internet. You must be new here.
And if my religion sanctifies wealth, am I then justified in "refusing to take into account another person's health and well-being?" You know, as opposed to run-of-the-mill, secular greed...No, because that is the person's health and well-being you are infringing upon. You can jest and deliberately misinterpret what I say, but I see no reason why it is necessary, unless one is going by the standard internet practice of being facetious.
Except I'm not. I'm completely serious.
Or are you taking the position that refusing people service because they are gay cannot affect their health and well-being? Because they most assuredly can.
Since a civil conversation cannot be had online without people deliberately taking what one says out of context, being fascetious and sarcastic of opinions differing from there own, and otherwise not contributing to the conversation at large without displaying some manner of civility, I will withdraw from this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...either I'm totally misunderstanding Divinitus or Axolotl is completely misreading his statements in the most obtuse possible way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And we've seen where your approach leads too. Allowing businesses to discriminate at will leads, oddly enough, to discrimination. Leads to the despised minority lacking any practical freedom, even if they theoretically have it.
Even outside of discrimination, the same principles lead to abuse by the wealthy few and desperate poverty for the vast majority.Plenty of states do protect their citizens from discrimination and abuse and pass regulations to ensure their safety without becoming dictatorships as you describe.
Sometimes, shockingly, the middle road actually works best.
Nope. Everyone knows it's either Mad Max or 1984.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since a civil conversation cannot be had online without people deliberately taking what one says out of context, being fascetious and sarcastic of opinions differing from there own, and otherwise not contributing to the conversation at large without displaying some manner of civility, I will withdraw from this thread.
The belief that it is okay to enable discrimination against an entire class of people while cloaking it in a pathetic banner of "freedom" or "rights" is, inherently, an uncivil position to hold.
You haven't yet learned that the ability to express a repugnant opinion does not entitle you to have that opinion respected. Most of us here have a moral obligation - to ourselves and to those we care for - to not afford opinions like yours any respect, because to do so is to pretend that those opinions deserve to be treated as potentially valid.
Admittedly we're mostly poking fun at the concept because the idea that we should all just learn medicine and not need hospitals is so insane.
"Need a heart bypass? Here's a mirror, bottle of alcohol, and a scalpel. Good luck."
Wait...are you gay? Give me back that scalpel!
Uh...either I'm totally misunderstanding Divinitus or Axolotl is completely misreading his statements in the most obtuse possible way.While Divinitus did say that he thought hospitals should be required to take patients he justified that by saying "because those are pretty much essential for homeostasis these days due to a lack of medical knowledge". He then did advocate teaching everyone trauma surgery in place of useless stuff like geometry and said making your own medications was easier than you think.
To me that implies that if medical knowledge was more widely known, if his suggestions were implemented, he'd have no problem with hospitals being allowed to turn people away for being the wrong (color/gender/religion/orientation/etc).
Admittedly we're mostly poking fun at the concept because the idea that we should all just learn medicine and not need hospitals is so insane.
It's silly, yeah, but I thought Axolotl was going a bit far with it. It was more a silly throwaway hypothetical than anything worth focusing on. :P
I may regret jumping into this thread later, but hell, a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do.
The entire idea of this bill is simply foolish, backward, and supports a school of thought that has, is, and will continue to plague humanity until A. we destroy ourselves or B. fundamentalist "good" christian values actually fall back in line with the actual good overtones the christian religion had at one time. This should also include any religion that has a fundamentalist sect or sects. While it not a given that such is a bad thing, just look at what such sects tend to do, whether christian, muslim, or anything else.
As a life long pagan druid, this bill means if I attend Gen Con, a business owner can refuse to sell me water even though it is 80+ degrees out because my religion is "offensive" to him. A car repair shop can refuse to fix my car, because they don't like the torc around my neck, or my height, or my mutton chops. And I am using such inane examples to illustrate how frackin' ridiculous this piece of legislation really is.
And yes, I am avoiding any mention of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgendered, because one, that is the persons BLOODY WELL PERSONAL business, and because while such groups are easy to target, the real issue is ANY of us could be targeted and refused services for ANY reason if the proprietor puts a religious spin to it.
In short this sort of bill, regardless of where it is being proposed, is the exact sort of thinking that will ensure that America remains a back-a**ward joke to much of the rest of the world, and because I am an American, I would rather see that stop happening. Yet, it just gets worse and worse, and also such base and vile attempts to make the law serve the ignorant and bigoted obscures and veils other pressing issues, like our killing the only planet we have to live on.
So a big kudos to you State of Indiana Gov. Way to ensure that you lose money and ruin the lives of your own citizens who may no be WASP's. I would hang my head in shame, but thanks to my countries follies and foibles, I am already doing that all the time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was just watching this video of one of Eric Foner's lectures and he had this worthwhile point about private business vs. state action. Helpfully, there was a transcript. Sorry about the dodgy formatting. Did my best.
Now, one other thing about this language is it applies to states, right? No state may do this, that, or the other thing. What about individual or private discrimination? Can a restaurant refuse to serve you because you're black? That's not the state, right? The state is not doing that. I mentioned this before that Senator Rand Paul last year said, well, you know the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yes, if banning racial segregation mandated by law is -- then sure,
the 14th Amendment, you can't do that.But what about private discrimination? He said, that's bad, I don't approve of it, but that's not state action. This is the "state action" principle. State action. One of the worst constitutional
concepts, I believe, that ever has been built into our jurisprudence
by the Supreme Court. We will see down the road how it goes in.It creates this false dichotomy between what they call de jure and de facto discrimination, let's say, discrimination by law and discrimination by individuals. And even when the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 18 -- of 1964, banning private
discrimination by public, you know, by restaurants, hotels,
they did not do it under the 14th -- they were afraid to do it
under the 14th Amendment, because of that state action clause.They did it under the Commerce Clause. A black guy is trying to drive around the South selling Fuller Brushes. He can't find a motel. He can't find a restaurant. That interferes with commerce, so therefore Congress can ban it. That's absurd. That's not why they passed that law, so guys can go around selling Fuller Brushes.
They passed it because private discrimination is a -- is itself a
stigmatization of certain groups of American citizens and ought not to be allowed.And moreover, every single private -- it's not a question of whether you have someone in your home -- every single restaurant, every single hotel is licensed by the state, is protected by the state.
You think when fire breaks out they're going to say, hey, I don't want the fire department because I'm a private place. No. They rely on the state. They're regulated by the state. The distinction between state and private is much murkier than the jurisprudence has, you know, has led us to believe.