Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

[dblack]

I'm not playing dumb. I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of the debate we're having about inalienable rights, but Pratchettfan claimed that the post in question proved I was wrong. How exactly? Do you know?

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

 

[dblack]

The SEX INDUSTRY is not considered a "public accommodation business."

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.

So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?

Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.

You think the majority will aways be on your side?

The majority is rarely on my side.

Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society. Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?

 

[Ravi]

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Your criteria was harming others so I asked you how selling a cake to gay people harms anyone.

 

[Ravi]

Not to mention that anyone is free to say I won't serve you because I think you're an asshole.

So far. That might get added to the PC list though. What if it is? Would you still support the law?

Maybe pigs will start shopping and maybe the moon is really made of cheese.

You think the majority will aways be on your side?

The majority is rarely on my side.

Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society. Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?

No, it isn't going to happen.

 

[dblack]

Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society. Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?

No, it isn't going to happen.

Wow...

 

[dblack]

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Your criteria was harming others so I asked you how selling a cake to gay people harms anyone.

It doesn't. And I ask you in return, how does refusing to sell a cake to gay people harm anyone?

 

[Ravi]

Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society. Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?

No, it isn't going to happen.

Wow...

You bolded the wrong sentence. I was answering number 3.

 

[Ravi]

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Your criteria was harming others so I asked you how selling a cake to gay people harms anyone.

It doesn't. And I ask you in return, how does refusing to sell a cake to gay people harm anyone?

I can't answer for others.

 

[kaz]

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

That's what a bigot would say.

A bigot or a true liberal. There is nothing liberal about running to government to force others to do things for you, that is authoritarian leftism

 

[dblack]

Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? The ability and willingness to see things from someone else's perspective is fundamental to moral society. Can you imagine a scenario where similar laws force you to serve someone you find reprehensible?

No, it isn't going to happen.

Wow...

You bolded the wrong sentence. I was answering number 3.

That was deliberate. I was hoping it would encourage you to try a little harder.

 

[dblack]

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Your criteria was harming others so I asked you how selling a cake to gay people harms anyone.

It doesn't. And I ask you in return, how does refusing to sell a cake to gay people harm anyone?

I can't answer for others.

What are you even talking about?? It is claimed that bakers who refuse to make cakes for gay weddings are inflicting harm, that's the reason why the Courts allow a law that overrides their freedom of association. But I'm asking, how is that harm? How did we get in this weird place where not doing something for someone is considered harm, and forcing someone to do something against their will is an appropriate remedy?

 

[I amso IR]

The forms of "discrimination" are myriad.

The vast majority are inferred allegations and totally innocuous and innocent.

But that just ain't how this country rolls.

Not since 2008.

Indeed. Since 1964 even. Rollin' downhill.

I amso IR responds;

Goldwater did not discriminate. He said he would nuke anyone who threatened the USA! I believe he used the term, rotate the nukes in storage, with an older shelf life, or words to that effect.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't know what you are talking about.

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states. End of story. You can stop whining at any time.

 

[dblack]

We were talking about whether discrimination is an inalienable right. Pratchettfan seemed to be saying that the fact that judges have ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws proved that they disagreed (with my assertion that it is a right). But that makes no sense. Just because something is a right protected by the constitution, doesn't mean government can't limit it - especially when the exercise of that right harms others.

The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example proves my point. The Court has ruled that laws limiting our freedom of speech can still pass Constitutional muster. That doesn't mean they have nullifed the First Amendment, and it doesn't mean we don't still have a right to free speech. It just means we can't do it in a way that harms others.

In supporting civil rights legislation, judges haven't nullifed our right to free association - even if we are committing 'commerce'. They've ruled that refusing to serve someone in a public accommodation can be prohibited by the state, even though it's an infringement of freedom of association, if it's done as an expression of certain types of bigotry that the state doesn't approve of. It's that ruling that I think is questionable, and sets up a really bad precedent.

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.

That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.

 

[ChrisL]

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.

That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.

You don't have any right to discriminate against people. It hurts business, which harms the state's income. The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business. That is all there is too it. All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.

 

[ChrisL]

How does selling a cake to a gay couple harm anyone?

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.

That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.

If you can't run a business without discriminating against groups of taxpaying American citizens who contribute to OUR economy, then most of us probably don't really want you to run a business anyway. Bigot.

 

[dblack]

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.

That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.

You don't have any right to discriminate against people. It hurts business, which harms the state's income. The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business. That is all there is too it. All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.

That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.

 

[dblack]

How does not?

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.

That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.

If you can't run a business without discriminating against groups of taxpaying American citizens who contribute to OUR economy, then most of us probably don't really want you to run a business anyway.

That's true.

Bigot.

That's not.

 

[ChrisL]

So it doesn't. Glad you can at least admit that.

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.

That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.

You don't have any right to discriminate against people. It hurts business, which harms the state's income. The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business. That is all there is too it. All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.

That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.

Sure you do. Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine. Nobody cares. These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways. I know I wouldn't. When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right." Read the laws. They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time. Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight. NONE.

 

[dblack]

Neither selling a cake, or refusing to sell a cake, can sanely be construed as 'harming someone'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Discrimination has been deemed harmful to business practice in most states.

That's exactly the problem. Once again we have government sacrificing individual rights to business interests.

You don't have any right to discriminate against people. It hurts business, which harms the state's income. The states are within THEIR right to set rules and regulations regarding how you do business. That is all there is too it. All of your whining isn't going to change a fucking thing.

That's not all there is to it. But it is an important aspect of the issue. People do have a right to choose who they like and don't like. We have a right to choose who we want to help and who we don't. We have a right to choose who we work for and who we don't. And that right shouldn't be infringed in the name of business, or state revenue.

Sure you do. Like I told you, if you want to behave like a jerk in your personal life, that's fine. Nobody cares. These people you want to discriminate against probably aren't interested in being friends with a person like you anyways. I know I wouldn't. When it comes to business associations, no you do not have that "right." Read the laws. They are clear and these laws have been in effect for a very long time. Too bad if you want to discriminate against other human beings. I don't feel any empathy for your plight. NONE.

All of life is personal, most especially what an individual chooses to do to earn a living. Our economic decisions are among the most important ways we express our personal values in society. The right to protest and refuse to accommodate those we disagree with is a crucial aspect of a self-regulating society. It's how we express our disapproval without resorting to laws and violence. Government shouldn't be in a position to decide why we can, or can't, make that call.