Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[Damaged Eagle]

You should learn proper English before tackling more complicated matters, I think.

Oh lookee here. It's another English major here to tell me bout learnin' the King's English and ta' keep my mouth shut. Here's an idea... Why don't you move back ta' England.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[ChrisL]

You should learn proper English before tackling more complicated matters, I think.

Oh lookee here. It's another English major here to tell me bout learnin' the King's English and ta' keep my mouth shut. Here's an idea... Why don't you move back ta' England.

*****CHUCKLE*****

That would be "about learning." Is "lookee" a word? I don't know, but it comes up on my spell checker as not being a word.

 

[ChrisL]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple - no comparison.

Again. Nice and slow this time. It has nothing to do with the product being supplied. It is about discriminating. You can refuse to make products. What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."

They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.

\

Then don't open a business serving the public.

That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.

Exactly. That is because it is bad business practice and the states are smart enough (surprisingly enough) to recognize that fact. You still have your right to be an arse in your personal life, like you were told. If you aren't willing to serve the "public" then don't open a business that serves the public.

 

[ChrisL]

He is right. Your argument is nothing but a silly strawman. Are you trying to convince people that the law only applies to Christian bakeries? Good lord, some of you people are just so stupid it amazes me.

I'm not attempting to convince people of anything. I'm only stating my stance on the issue as an independent. While you on the other hand appear only capable of attempting to berate and abuse me into accepting your point of view. Using that as a reference base I'll assume that my observations are correct and work at replacing any judges here in Iowa, since we elect them, that support your point of view.

*****CHUCKLE*****

That is because you keep declaring your ignorance on the topic. You have no "reference base."

 

[ChrisL]

Again. Nice and slow this time. It has nothing to do with the product being supplied. It is about discriminating. You can refuse to make products. What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."

They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.

Then don't open a business serving the public.

Or do and deal with the consequences. Again, I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing what is right and fair.
Christian's have been persecuted from day 1, I don't expect it will end now............

Oh, good grief. I know, you poor thing. You can't discriminate against people. How sad.

.. but it's OK to discriminate and be intolerant of Christian's... I see....

Nope, the law covers religious beliefs as well. If you go to a store in that particular state and a person tells you they won't serve you because of your religious beliefs, then you can file a complaint.

 

[dblack]

There is a huge difference between blacks not being allowed to sit with whites and a Christian couple refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple - no comparison.

Again. Nice and slow this time. It has nothing to do with the product being supplied. It is about discriminating. You can refuse to make products. What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."

They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.

\

Then don't open a business serving the public.

That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.

Exactly. That is because it is bad business practice and the states are smart enough (surprisingly enough) to recognize that fact. You still have your right to be an arse in your personal life, like you were told. If you aren't willing to serve the "public" then don't open a business that serves the public.

And the state should have the right to decide what is 'bad business' and force people to comply? I don't think they should. If someone think it's more important to stick to their values than to make a profit, it should be their call. Unless they're harming someone, the state has no business intervening.

 

[ChrisL]

Again. Nice and slow this time. It has nothing to do with the product being supplied. It is about discriminating. You can refuse to make products. What you cannot do is say "I won't sell my product to gay people."

They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.

\

Then don't open a business serving the public.

That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.

Exactly. That is because it is bad business practice and the states are smart enough (surprisingly enough) to recognize that fact. You still have your right to be an arse in your personal life, like you were told. If you aren't willing to serve the "public" then don't open a business that serves the public.

And the state should have the right to decide what is 'bad business' and force people to comply? I don't think they should. If someone think it's more important to stick to their values than to make a profit, it should be their call. Unless they're harming someone, the state has no business intervening.

Of course they do. The states set the rules and regulations for how you run business. The states have determined that discrimination harms people and is a violation of their civil rights.

 

[dblack]

They are saying "It's against my beliefs to condone gay marriage, and, by supplying and making a cake for it, I am in effect, participating in a gay marriage which is against my religious beliefs" - I'm sure they would have no problem make a cake for a gay couple if they were having a birthday.

\

Then don't open a business serving the public.

That would be fine if the business owner could decide whether they are serving the public - or merely those they choose to serve - if preserving their rights were simply a matter of posting a sign stating such intent. The problem is, these laws don't allow that.

Exactly. That is because it is bad business practice and the states are smart enough (surprisingly enough) to recognize that fact. You still have your right to be an arse in your personal life, like you were told. If you aren't willing to serve the "public" then don't open a business that serves the public.

And the state should have the right to decide what is 'bad business' and force people to comply? I don't think they should. If someone think it's more important to stick to their values than to make a profit, it should be their call. Unless they're harming someone, the state has no business intervening.

Of course they do. The states set the rules and regulations for how you run business. The states have determined that discrimination harms people and is a violation of their civil rights.

Yes, I know what they've determined. And it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how shopping in a given store can be considered a 'right'. It's not a freedom, it's the power to force others to act against their will. And it's not harm to not do something for someone. The concept would be laughable if so many people didn't accept it as a valid legal precedent.

 

[Skylar]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

The distribution of resources in our society is done through commerce. Thus you're discriminating access to goods and services. That's problematic. It can create vast disparities racially, by gender, religion, etc. And these disparities have historically come with a high historical cost.

Additionally, the basic premise of capitalism is choice and knowledge. Discrimination interferes with choice. And thus interferes with capitalism.

Finally establishing some basic codes of conduct in business is not unreasonable. We already do so in terms of fraud, common currency, bait and switch, false advertising, filing requirements for business, licensing, etc.

 

[dblack]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

The distribution of resources in our society is done through commerce. Thus you're discriminating access to goods and services

Exactly. The core question here is who should control the distribution of good and services - the government, or the people.

Additionally, the basic premise of capitalism is choice and knowledge. Discrimination interferes with choice. And thus interferes with capitalism.

Discrimination IS choice. Overriding such choices with state mandates is the opposite.

Finally establishing some basic codes of conduct in business is not unreasonable. We already do so in terms of fraud, common currency, bait and switch, false advertising, filing requirements for business, licensing, etc.

We already do many things that aren't just. The power of government should be reserved for protecting our rights, not violating them for the sake of convenience.

 

[Skylar]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

The distribution of resources in our society is done through commerce. Thus you're discriminating access to goods and services

Exactly. The core question here is who should control the distribution of good and services - the government, or the people.

The people who passed the PA laws requiring basic standards of conduct in business. Within the bounds of individual rights the authority of the people is quite broad, especially on the state level.

And should be.

And you completely glossed over the vast disparities discrimination can and has created historically. How these disparities limit opportunity, stratify society, create social instability and are used as means of coercion, exploitation, abuse and control. You know, all the great failures of Libertarianism.

Discrimination IS choice. Overriding such choices with state mandates is the opposite.

Consumer choice. And consumer knowledge. Limiting consumer choice to those of a particular color or religion is bad capitalism. As it grossly reduces efficiency, the primary benefit of the capitalist system.

Finally establishing some basic codes of conduct in business is not unreasonable. We already do so in terms of fraud, common currency, bait and switch, false advertising, filing requirements for business, licensing, etc.

We already do many things that aren't just. The power of government should be reserved for protecting our rights, not violating them for the sake of convenience.

[/quote]

I don't consider any of those things to be unjust. The prevention of fraud is not unjust. The preventing of baiting and switching is not unjust. Licensing a business is not unjust. Basic codes of conduct in business have been established and enforced for about as long as there has been civilization.

Again, you're running headlong into the great ivory tower failures of libertarianism: its utterly inability to mitigate private abuses of power in the real world. Fraud, exploitation, abuse, control, crippling discrimination, regional monopolies, price fixing, etc all have vast historical precedent. Not as hypothetical, but as examples of things that have and of course will happen unless we prevent them.

And Libertarianism can do exactly dick about any of them.

Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse. Private power goes completely unchecked. And these kind of abuses go unchecked. As while Libertarianism can recognize the potential for abuse of government power, they lack the ability to comprehend or at least acknowledge the horrendous social and personal effects of abuses of concentrations of private power.

Its one of the reasons that libertarianism is inherently exploitative...and of course, unsustainable. As concentrations of private power grow, corruption and abuse grow with them. With no checks, handfuls of private parties become the political and economic power brokers. And with it, the erosion of libertarianism. Its a self defeating system. And of course, deeply exploitative. The eras in our country that most closely matched it were based deeply in indentured servitude and slavery. Where people could be purchased or sold. And small number of men wielded vast power over huge numbers of individuals. With virtually no checks to that power.

That's not a coincidence.

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.

Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.

 

[Skylar]

Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.

Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.

And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few. Who then corrupt your 'we don't bother checking private abuses of power because we fantasize that nothing could possibly go wrong' libertarian pipe dream.

This is exactly why libertarianism is unsustainable. 1) Its hideously exploitative. As the slavery and indentured servitude our more libertarian past depended upon demonstrates. 2) Unchecked private power will inevitably corrupt the system of government.

Libertarianism is an ivory tower concept that doesn't play well in the real world.

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.

Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.

And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few.

Private power isn't coercive. Government power is. That's the difference you ignore.

 

[Skylar]

Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.

Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.

And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few.

Private power isn't coercive. Government power is. That's the difference you ignore.

Absolute horseshit. Again, another grand libertarian failing is their comically naive concept of 'consent'. It doesn't matter if you're being utterly exploited, being paid in 'company money', being cheated, making a choice between selling yourself or death......if you say 'yes', you'v offered consent. And the oligarch can do *anything* to you. Anything at all.

That's the libertarian conception of 'consent'. Where by any rational standard, exploitation, discrimination, abuse, and coersion render consent a spectrum. Not the childish binary that libertarians imagine.

Again, we've tried pretty close to your system. Slavery, abuse, coercion, indentured servitude, company stores, private armies, and the systematic oppression were the result. Libertarianism is a wet dream for the rich and powerful. As it eliminates virtually all constraints. There is literally no degradation, no abuse, no exploitation, harassment, manipulation, injustice, discrimination, fraud or oppression that a libertarian won't abide....if the person under the boot of the powerful is forced to say 'yes'.

And of course, in addition to the wasteland of weakness and inexcusable acts of willful ignorance, there's one more Achilles heel in a political philosophy that's virtually all heel: concentrating power in the hands of a handful of the wealthy and powerful will inevitably lead to political corruption and the erosion of the very ideals that libertarians value.

There is no way that this system works. As ANY concentration of power left unchecked will be abused. And libertarians in their naivete will address nothing but the possibility of government abuse. They completely ignore private abuses, despite our own history overflowing with them. Guaranteeing that private power will be concentrated and left unchecked.

 

[DCJ]

And we don't give up our rights simply because we're engaging in 'commerce'.

I have done an exhaustive search of the konsitituion & have not found that?? Have a link??

 

[ChrisL]

Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.

Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.

And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few.

Private power isn't coercive. Government power is. That's the difference you ignore.

Absolute horseshit. Again, another grand libertarian failing is their comically naive concept of 'consent'. It doesn't matter if you're being utterly exploited, being paid in 'company money', being cheated, making a choice between selling yourself or death......if you say 'yes', you'v offered consent. And the oligarch can do *anything* to you. Anything at all.

That's the libertarian conception of 'consent'. Where by any rational standard, exploitation, discrimination, abuse, and coersion render consent a spectrum. Not the childish binary that libertarians imagine.

Again, we've tried pretty close to your system. Slavery, abuse, coercion, indentured servitude, company stores, private armies, and the systematic oppression were the result. Libertarianism is a wet dream for the rich and powerful. As it eliminates virtually all constraints. There is literally no degradation, no abuse, no exploitation, harassment, manipulation, injustice, discrimination, fraud or oppression that a libertarian won't abide....if the person under the boot of the powerful is forced to say 'yes'.

And of course, in addition to the wasteland of weakness and inexcusable acts of willful ignorance, there's one more Achilles heel in a political philosophy that's virtually all heel: concentrating power in the hands of a handful of the wealthy and powerful will inevitably lead to political corruption and the erosion of the very ideals that libertarians value.

There is no way that this system works. As ANY concentration of power left unchecked will be abused. And libertarians in their naivete will address nothing but the possibility of government abuse. They completely ignore private abuses, despite our own history overflowing with them. Guaranteeing that private power will be concentrated and left unchecked.

Well, there is a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist. I consider myself to be a libertarian to a certain degree, when it comes to the ability to practice our rights without government interference, etc. I just don't see discrimination as a right, and I do not agree with this argument that "if I open a business, I can choose who to serve and who not to serve." It's bull, and the states certainly do have the power to set regulations and laws regarding how people conduct themselves when doing business. Discrimination is bad business practice, and the states recognize that fact.

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream because it has no checks for this kind of private abuse.

Oligarchs thrive by controlling government and using its power to further their interests. They despise libertarians.

And when you have no check on private power, private power is concentrated among the hands of the few.

Private power isn't coercive. Government power is. That's the difference you ignore.

Absolute horseshit. Again, another grand libertarian failing is their comically naive concept of 'consent'. It doesn't matter if you're being utterly exploited, being paid in 'company money', being cheated, making a choice between selling yourself or death......if you say 'yes', you'v offered consent. And the oligarch can do *anything* to you. Anything at all.

That's the libertarian conception of 'consent'. Where by any rational standard, exploitation, discrimination, abuse, and coersion render consent a spectrum. Not the childish binary that libertarians imagine.

Again, we've tried pretty close to your system. Slavery, abuse, coercion, indentured servitude, company stores, private armies, and the systematic oppression were the result. Libertarianism is a wet dream for the rich and powerful. As it eliminates virtually all constraints. There is literally no degradation, no abuse, no exploitation, harassment, manipulation, injustice, discrimination, fraud or oppression that a libertarian won't abide....if the person under the boot of the powerful is forced to say 'yes'.

And of course, in addition to the wasteland of weakness and inexcusable acts of willful ignorance, there's one more Achilles heel in a political philosophy that's virtually all heel: concentrating power in the hands of a handful of the wealthy and powerful will inevitably lead to political corruption and the erosion of the very ideals that libertarians value.

There is no way that this system works. As ANY concentration of power left unchecked will be abused. And libertarians in their naivete will address nothing but the possibility of government abuse. They completely ignore private abuses, despite our own history overflowing with them. Guaranteeing that private power will be concentrated and left unchecked.

You're way off base here, but I'd rather not get bogged down with the usual libertarian strawman. The topic is government infringement on our freedom of association, on the basic freedom to decide who you collaborate with in life, and who you'd rather avoid. I can certainly understand that our freedoms are limited by any harm they might cause others. But that's where the basic concept of discrimination law fails.

 

[dblack]

Well, there is a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist. I consider myself to be a libertarian to a certain degree, when it comes to the ability to practice our rights without government interference, etc. I just don't see discrimination as a right, and I do not agree with this argument that "if I open a business, I can choose who to serve and who not to serve." It's bull, and the states certainly do have the power to set regulations and laws regarding how people conduct themselves when doing business. Discrimination is bad business practice, and the states recognize that fact.

I agree it's bad business practice, but how are you seeing it as such? In particular, how does it qualify as something government should address?

 

[shadow355]

Well, there is a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist. I consider myself to be a libertarian to a certain degree, when it comes to the ability to practice our rights without government interference, etc. I just don't see discrimination as a right, and I do not agree with this argument that "if I open a business, I can choose who to serve and who not to serve." It's bull, and the states certainly do have the power to set regulations and laws regarding how people conduct themselves when doing business. Discrimination is bad business practice, and the states recognize that fact.

I agree it's bad business practice, but how are you seeing it as such? In particular, how does it qualify as something government should address?

This past Friday, I went to the dealership where I bought my truck.....and have it serviced.

1) I walked in the service department and asked to have the oil changed I my truck. The attendant, whom I have never seen before ; told me I needed and appointment. I told him that in the ten years I have been doing business there, I have never needed an appointment ( it has never been extremely busy. I said I would come back later. I was at the south end of the county seat, just outside the city limits near the interstate.

2) I decided when I was driving away, to go to the dealerships "sister" dealership just down the road a few miles ; in the south end of the county seat. I walked toward the service department and as I did, I looked inside the garage to the right of the service department. No vehicles waiting, and there was only two or three vehicles inside. It is late morning, about an hour and a half before noon. I have time to get my oil changed and my tires rotated. I walked through the glass door and talked to the service person. I asked if I could get my oil changed, and he told me that they were busy, and I would have to make an appointment. I did not argue, I knew better. I was getting the "run around" in my opinion.....from both dealerships owned by the same "Autogroup".


Shadow 355