Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[dblack]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

Not necessarily within a job. You might be teacher in a school who doesn't like hispanics - you still have to do your job and do it professionally regardless of whether you find them repugnant or not. Or quit.

I'd hope the employer of such a teacher would fire them, but I don't think the law should have anything to say about it, either way.

 

[dblack]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

 

[dblack]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

No they do not.

Actually, let's talk about that - because it seems central to all of this. It seems to me, the right to say no is fundamental, and I wonder if you realize the kind of government we'll be adopting by saying it's not.

 

[Ravi]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

Sure they do.

 

[Carla_Danger]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

The owners of the Oregon bakery violated their state's anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What the law should be:
Free speech must be protected: people must be free to express their opinions however unpopular (for example Westborobaptists, KKK etc.). There is no guarantee that there won't be hurt feelings, boycotts, protests because that too is legitimate free speech. If free speech is slander or libel - that should be against the law.

Speech and actions are two different things. Actions are not always free speech. Agree that - no person should be forced to engage in any activity he doesn't wish to, as an individual.

A business is not a person. Repeat - a business is not a person. If a person's business is providing a specialized service then that service should be applied equally, without class discrimmination, to the public. Because the business is service they are no more participating in the event than any other vender who provides goods.

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

No they do not.

That's fucked up!

Not at all. When you open a business in the public square, you are using public infrastructure to do so. Everyone pays for the infrastructure, including gay people. If a business is open to the public it is required to provide the same service to anyone that walks thru the door. This is what a civilized society does. If you want to run a business that caters to only like minded people who share the same beliefs, open a Church. Stop trying to turn this country into a theocracy where YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the law of the land.

 

[dblack]

I don't get this either. A person doing business is still a person. Why should they sacrifice their rights because cash is exchanged? Nearly every social interaction we have involves some kind of exchange. People associate for mutual benefit. And they discriminate in who they choose to associate with. I don't see why the should have to justify their choices to the state.

A business isn't a person. What fundamental individual rights does a business have?

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

No they do not.

That's fucked up!

Not at all. When you open a business in the public square, you are using public infrastructure to do so. Everyone pays for the infrastructure, including gay people. If a business is open to the public it is required to provide the same service to anyone that walks thru the door. This is what a civilized society does. If you want to run a business that caters to only like minded people who share the same beliefs, open a Church. Stop trying to turn this country into a theocracy where YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the law of the land.

That's not my motivation here.

 

[Foxfyre]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

The owners of the Oregon bakery violated their state's anti-discrimination laws.

This thread is not about existing law or violation of existing law at any level. This thread is about a principle that can include what the law should be but not what the law is. Please review the thread topic.

 

[Carla_Danger]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

The owners of the Oregon bakery violated their state's anti-discrimination laws.

This thread is not about existing law or violation of existing law at any level. This thread is about a principle that can include what the law should be but not what the law is. Please review the thread topic.

It's about a pretend world? Okay, I'd like to live in a pretend world where no one discriminates against sexual orientation or the color of ones skin.

 

[Foxfyre]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

If the city has the right to force me to provide products and/or services specifically for an anti-gay rally, I won't be opening a business in that city.

 

[dblack]

I don't know what "a business" is, in this context. I'm talking about people. Don't they have a right to refuse to deal with people they find repugnant?

No they do not.

That's fucked up!

Not at all. When you open a business in the public square, you are using public infrastructure to do so. Everyone pays for the infrastructure, including gay people. If a business is open to the public it is required to provide the same service to anyone that walks thru the door. This is what a civilized society does. If you want to run a business that caters to only like minded people who share the same beliefs, open a Church. Stop trying to turn this country into a theocracy where YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the law of the land.

That's not my motivation here.

Then what is your motivation to discriminate towards same sex couples?

I don't have any. My motivation is to prevent bad laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

And Coyote, I can't find the other post in which you used the argument that the person might be the only wedding planner around for miles. That should make no difference whatsoever. There is no fundamental right to have a wedding planner provided. Nobody can force somebody to go into business just because somebody wants access to such a business. And likewise, nobody should be able to force anybody to carry a product or service the business owner does not wish to carry just because somebody wants it. Just because a store is the ONLY one in the area does not mean the customers have any right to demand anything from it other than what the business owner chooses to offer.

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

The owners of the Oregon bakery violated their state's anti-discrimination laws.

This thread is not about existing law or violation of existing law at any level. This thread is about a principle that can include what the law should be but not what the law is. Please review the thread topic.

It's about a pretend world? Okay, I'd like to live in a pretend world where no one discriminates against sexual orientation or the color of ones skin.

In the context of this thread topic, nobody is saying anybody should be allowed to discriminate against anybody because of his/her sexual orientation or the color of one's skin.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There is also no fundamental right to have your wedding planning business licensed to operate in a particular city. A city should have the right to require a business to follow certain guidelines.

Governments don't have "rights".

The owners of the Oregon bakery violated their state's anti-discrimination laws.

This thread is not about existing law or violation of existing law at any level. This thread is about a principle that can include what the law should be but not what the law is. Please review the thread topic.

It's about a pretend world? Okay, I'd like to live in a pretend world where no one discriminates against sexual orientation or the color of ones skin.

In the context of this thread topic, nobody is saying anybody should be allowed to discriminate against anybody because of his/her sexual orientation or the color of one's skin.

If you're refusing services based on sexual orientation, that's exactly what discrimination is.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question I have - when people say that business' have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is where does this lead to?

We know what our country used to be like when there were no anti-discrimmination laws.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event deemed politically incorrect and therefore bad but but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

 

[Carla_Danger]

No they do not.

That's fucked up!

Not at all. When you open a business in the public square, you are using public infrastructure to do so. Everyone pays for the infrastructure, including gay people. If a business is open to the public it is required to provide the same service to anyone that walks thru the door. This is what a civilized society does. If you want to run a business that caters to only like minded people who share the same beliefs, open a Church. Stop trying to turn this country into a theocracy where YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the law of the land.

That's not my motivation here.

Then what is your motivation to discriminate towards same sex couples?

I don't have any. My motivation is to prevent bad laws.

There must be some reason you think anti-discrimination laws are bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Governments don't have "rights".

The owners of the Oregon bakery violated their state's anti-discrimination laws.

This thread is not about existing law or violation of existing law at any level. This thread is about a principle that can include what the law should be but not what the law is. Please review the thread topic.

It's about a pretend world? Okay, I'd like to live in a pretend world where no one discriminates against sexual orientation or the color of ones skin.

In the context of this thread topic, nobody is saying anybody should be allowed to discriminate against anybody because of his/her sexual orientation or the color of one's skin.

If you're refusing services based on sexual orientation, that's exactly what discrimination is.

Just as I would not participate in your anti-gay rally if you had one, I should have every right to not participate in your same-sex wedding if you had one. Neither has anything to do with who or what you are but has everything to do with not wishing to be associated with a specific event.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The question I have - when people say that business' have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is where does this lead to?

We know what our country used to be like when there were no anti-discrimmination laws.

But that is a separate discussion from the topic. The topic is not whether people should be discriminated against for who and what they are. They shouldn't. And I have been consistent in saying I don't have a problem with that being a condition of a business license.

But IMO it is wrong for a business license to require a business owner to participate in or contribute to AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY that the business owner chooses not to participate in. Again, to refuse to participate in your anti-gay rally is not discriminating against you. It is refusing to be party to something I do not wish to be associated with in any way. I'll still take care of all of your other rallies.

To refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against gays. It is refusing to be party to something the person does not wish to be associated with in any way. The business owner will still take care of the gay couple's birthday parties, class reunions, or fund raising event for gay rights.

How is it not unfair discrimination to allow people to not participate in an event he/she deems offensive or unethical or just wrong but require people to participate in an event that somebody else thinks is okay?

No one is asking you to participate. Doing a cake assembly is NOT participating any more than me mowing the lawn at the Baptist Church, makes me a Baptist.

 

[Valerie]

again... still... there is a well defined standard which already exists, as it should:




To Wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest.



And he would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent...

The New Intolerance - WSJ

 

[Carla_Danger]

The owners of the Oregon bakery violated their state's anti-discrimination laws.

This thread is not about existing law or violation of existing law at any level. This thread is about a principle that can include what the law should be but not what the law is. Please review the thread topic.

It's about a pretend world? Okay, I'd like to live in a pretend world where no one discriminates against sexual orientation or the color of ones skin.

In the context of this thread topic, nobody is saying anybody should be allowed to discriminate against anybody because of his/her sexual orientation or the color of one's skin.

If you're refusing services based on sexual orientation, that's exactly what discrimination is.

Just as I would not participate in your anti-gay rally if you had one, I should have every right to not participate in your same-sex wedding if you had one. Neither has anything to do with who or what you are but has everything to do with not wishing to be associated with a specific event.

No one is asking you to participate in either.

 

[Foxfyre]

This thread is not about existing law or violation of existing law at any level. This thread is about a principle that can include what the law should be but not what the law is. Please review the thread topic.

It's about a pretend world? Okay, I'd like to live in a pretend world where no one discriminates against sexual orientation or the color of ones skin.

In the context of this thread topic, nobody is saying anybody should be allowed to discriminate against anybody because of his/her sexual orientation or the color of one's skin.

If you're refusing services based on sexual orientation, that's exactly what discrimination is.

Just as I would not participate in your anti-gay rally if you had one, I should have every right to not participate in your same-sex wedding if you had one. Neither has anything to do with who or what you are but has everything to do with not wishing to be associated with a specific event.

No one is asking you to participate in either.

If it requires my time, my skills, my inventory, my staff etc. and/or has my name on it, it is participation.