Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Ravi]

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Exactly. We're trying to use government to outlaw unpopular attitudes.

I see it more as not letting unpopular attitudes make the life of the target difficult.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why doesn't our nutter crew know that it is legal to discriminate against gay people in 29 states? Is this some kind of collective willful ignorance?

There are 29 states.....Indiana among them.....in which it is legal to deny employment or services to gay people.

This pretending that the entire matter is about wedding cakes is BULLSHIT.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Everyone picks and chooses. Racism and sexism and all the other isms are IMPOSSIBLE to regulate by law. They are ATTITUDES!

Exactly. We're trying to use government to outlaw unpopular attitudes.

I see it more as not letting unpopular attitudes make the life of the target difficult.

It's the "making the life of the target difficult" part that's possible to regulate.

The bad attitude behind the behavior is wholly owned by the bearer of that attitude, a.k.a. "The Perp", or "The Unsub", if one is a fan of 'Criminal Minds'.

 

[Politico]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza to whom ever they want. Agreed don't over think it..

 

[dblack]

Can a society that claims it cherishes freedom of thought really regulate the desire to put hot lead between the eyes of some prick who desperately deserves it?

PA laws don't regulate 'desires'. They regulate actions. And yes, you can definitely regulate action. A person can DESIRE to discriminate against gays. But until they actual deny services, they've violated no laws.

That's flatly untrue. What makes the act of refusing service to someone illegal is the reason for doing so.

The desire without an act violates no law. Which is exactly my point. You can desire whatever you want. When you act on that desire, you can be held accountable to the law.

The act without the desire violates no law. Which is exactly my point.

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

 

[dblack]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

 

[Ravi]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

 

[dblack]

What kind of question is this? Do you know what american rights even are? Of ******* course we have the right to not be discriminated against. Unless, of course, such discrimination falls under freedom of speech. A lot of the times it doesn't.

I think I do know, a fair amount, about American rights. But I'm always willing to learn more. Aren't we all discriminating against each other, all the time? I don't really see how a government can, or should, try to police us in such a pervasive way. How could government possible protect such a right?

 

[dblack]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

It's not bigots I'm referring to in regard to unequal protection. Protected classes, despite the nominal characterization, single out specific groups for special protection. We can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, poor people, etc... but we can't discriminate against racial minorities, or women, or religious groups. Now we're looking to add gays, and I see no good reason they should be excluded. But why should anyone be excluded?

This question usually prompts, from the more principled liberals, the notion that all discrimination should be illegal. Which seems bizarrely unworkable. The only fair solution I see is to acknowledge that all people have a fundamental human right to discriminate, for whatever reasons they like, and accept that sometimes people are going to have despicable reasons. But when they do, we can despise them. We can discriminate against them in turn.

Discrimination is how society moderates itself without resorting to coercion. Mostly it's a good thing. It's what makes public figures apologize when they say asinine things in public. It's what makes businesses brag about being 'green'. It's why people are gracious and friendly even when they'd rather not be. Asking people to turn that off, to require that all expression of disapproval be channeled through democratic government isn't feasible, nor desirable.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

Bigotry is only perceived from the victims perspective.
If you are gay and a christian is against dealing with you, then the bigotry is only perceived by the gay community.
If you are christian, the bible teaches that homosexuality is evil, vile and against the commandments of God.
Christians don't see this as being bigoted, just sticking by their convictions.
Gay / Blacks / etc. have looked at this refusal to interact and sought sympathy / recourse through laws which protect their specific class.

As far as "serving gays / blacks / whatever" in your mythical restaurant, get a pie, take their money and move on in life. You simply have to take their order, prepare the food and move on in life. When you open a business that caters to the "public" then by common sense that what you are expected to do.

Now in the same breath, being forced to cater a gay / black / whatever affair would generally entail that you have intimate involvement with the affair. Forcing a Christian / Jewish / White supremacist to have to interact with gays / German's / Blacks ..................

For each protected class there is someone who's faith is being violated by having to deal directly with those they do not wish to interact with.
I keep asking at what point and time do their rights get trumped by protected class's??

 

[Ravi]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

It's not bigots I'm referring to in regard to unequal protection. Protected classes, despite the nominal characterization, single out specific groups for special protection. We can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, poor people, etc... but we can't discriminate against racial minorities, or women, or religious groups. Now we're looking to add gays, and I see no good reason they should be excluded. But why should anyone be excluded?

This question usually prompts, from the more principled liberals, the notion that all discrimination should be illegal. Which seems bizarrely unworkable. The only fair solution I see is to acknowledge that all people have a fundamental human right to discriminate, for whatever reasons they like, and accept that sometimes people are going to have despicable reasons. But when they do, we can despise them. We can discriminate against them in turn.

Discrimination is how society moderates itself without resorting to coercion. Mostly it's a good thing. It's what makes public figures apologize when they say asinine things in public. It's what makes businesses brag about being 'green'. It's why people are gracious and friendly even when they'd rather not be. Asking people to turn that off, to require that all expression of disapproval be channeled through democratic government isn't feasible, nor desirable.

Do you think that someone would refuse to sell a cake to a fat person, an ugly person, or a poor person?

 

[Ravi]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

Bigotry is only perceived from the victims perspective.
If you are gay and a christian is against dealing with you, then the bigotry is only perceived by the gay community.
If you are christian, the bible teaches that homosexuality is evil, vile and against the commandments of God.
Christians don't see this as being bigoted, just sticking by their convictions.
Gay / Blacks / etc. have looked at this refusal to interact and sought sympathy / recourse through laws which protect their specific class.

As far as "serving gays / blacks / whatever" in your mythical restaurant, get a pie, take their money and move on in life. You simply have to take their order, prepare the food and move on in life. When you open a business that caters to the "public" then by common sense that what you are expected to do.

Now in the same breath, being forced to cater a gay / black / whatever affair would generally entail that you have intimate involvement with the affair. Forcing a Christian / Jewish / White supremacist to have to interact with gays / German's / Blacks ..................

For each protected class there is someone who's faith is being violated by having to deal directly with those they do not wish to interact with.
I keep asking at what point and time do their rights get trumped by protected class's??

None of the commandments address gay people. Jesus Christ get your act together.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

None of the commandments address gay people. Jesus Christ get your act together.

You speak in strict terms of "the 10 commandments", his teaching have many commandments which speak against homosexuality.

Or are you such a dumb ******* ***, you want to argue the bible doesn't teach against homosexuality??

 

[dblack]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

It's not bigots I'm referring to in regard to unequal protection. Protected classes, despite the nominal characterization, single out specific groups for special protection. We can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, poor people, etc... but we can't discriminate against racial minorities, or women, or religious groups. Now we're looking to add gays, and I see no good reason they should be excluded. But why should anyone be excluded?

This question usually prompts, from the more principled liberals, the notion that all discrimination should be illegal. Which seems bizarrely unworkable. The only fair solution I see is to acknowledge that all people have a fundamental human right to discriminate, for whatever reasons they like, and accept that sometimes people are going to have despicable reasons. But when they do, we can despise them. We can discriminate against them in turn.

Discrimination is how society moderates itself without resorting to coercion. Mostly it's a good thing. It's what makes public figures apologize when they say asinine things in public. It's what makes businesses brag about being 'green'. It's why people are gracious and friendly even when they'd rather not be. Asking people to turn that off, to require that all expression of disapproval be channeled through democratic government isn't feasible, nor desirable.

Do you think that someone would refuse to sell a cake to a fat person, an ugly person, or a poor person?

Not sure about the cake scenario, but these people are discriminated against all the time. By businesses, employers, and the general public. Are you saying it doesn't happen?

 

[Skylar]

PA laws don't regulate 'desires'. They regulate actions. And yes, you can definitely regulate action. A person can DESIRE to discriminate against gays. But until they actual deny services, they've violated no laws.

That's flatly untrue. What makes the act of refusing service to someone illegal is the reason for doing so.

The desire without an act violates no law. Which is exactly my point. You can desire whatever you want. When you act on that desire, you can be held accountable to the law.

The act without the desire violates no law. Which is exactly my point.

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

 

[Ravi]

we may differ on whether or not we should be treated equally by each other but democrat and republican should agree that we should each be treated equally by those in power.

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

It's not bigots I'm referring to in regard to unequal protection. Protected classes, despite the nominal characterization, single out specific groups for special protection. We can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, poor people, etc... but we can't discriminate against racial minorities, or women, or religious groups. Now we're looking to add gays, and I see no good reason they should be excluded. But why should anyone be excluded?

This question usually prompts, from the more principled liberals, the notion that all discrimination should be illegal. Which seems bizarrely unworkable. The only fair solution I see is to acknowledge that all people have a fundamental human right to discriminate, for whatever reasons they like, and accept that sometimes people are going to have despicable reasons. But when they do, we can despise them. We can discriminate against them in turn.

Discrimination is how society moderates itself without resorting to coercion. Mostly it's a good thing. It's what makes public figures apologize when they say asinine things in public. It's what makes businesses brag about being 'green'. It's why people are gracious and friendly even when they'd rather not be. Asking people to turn that off, to require that all expression of disapproval be channeled through democratic government isn't feasible, nor desirable.

Do you think that someone would refuse to sell a cake to a fat person, an ugly person, or a poor person?

Not sure about the cake scenario, but these people are discriminated against all the time. By businesses, employers, and the general public. Are you saying it doesn't happen?

In what way?

 

[dblack]

That's flatly untrue. What makes the act of refusing service to someone illegal is the reason for doing so.

The desire without an act violates no law. Which is exactly my point. You can desire whatever you want. When you act on that desire, you can be held accountable to the law.

The act without the desire violates no law. Which is exactly my point.

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

 

[dblack]

Oh, absolutely. Equality under the law is crucial. And honestly, that's what bothers me about the protected classes/PA approach to civil rights law. It actually turns that on it's head and creates decidedly unequal protection of the law.

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

It's not bigots I'm referring to in regard to unequal protection. Protected classes, despite the nominal characterization, single out specific groups for special protection. We can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, poor people, etc... but we can't discriminate against racial minorities, or women, or religious groups. Now we're looking to add gays, and I see no good reason they should be excluded. But why should anyone be excluded?

This question usually prompts, from the more principled liberals, the notion that all discrimination should be illegal. Which seems bizarrely unworkable. The only fair solution I see is to acknowledge that all people have a fundamental human right to discriminate, for whatever reasons they like, and accept that sometimes people are going to have despicable reasons. But when they do, we can despise them. We can discriminate against them in turn.

Discrimination is how society moderates itself without resorting to coercion. Mostly it's a good thing. It's what makes public figures apologize when they say asinine things in public. It's what makes businesses brag about being 'green'. It's why people are gracious and friendly even when they'd rather not be. Asking people to turn that off, to require that all expression of disapproval be channeled through democratic government isn't feasible, nor desirable.

Do you think that someone would refuse to sell a cake to a fat person, an ugly person, or a poor person?

Not sure about the cake scenario, but these people are discriminated against all the time. By businesses, employers, and the general public. Are you saying it doesn't happen?

In what way?

Really? I gotta through a list? You've really never seen it?

 

[Skylar]

The desire without an act violates no law. Which is exactly my point. You can desire whatever you want. When you act on that desire, you can be held accountable to the law.

The act without the desire violates no law. Which is exactly my point.

Depends. If you won't sell to black folks..it really doesn't matter what your desire or reasoning is. Its the act of discrimination itself that is illegal.

You can have an illegal act without a desire to discriminate. You can't have an illegal act without an act.

The desire or reasoning is the point of the law. Discrimination is legal, unless it is based on prohibited reasons - the protected classes. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

The regulation itself is on the action. And you violate the law without desire simply by committing the act. Demonstrating elegantly that its the action that's regulated.

Not 'desire'.

Nonsense. Under current law is the reason for discrimination that makes it illegal. If I refuse service to a black man because I don't his clothes, it's legal. If I do it because I don't like his race, it's illegal. Not sure how you don't see that.

If you won't serve gays, it really don't matter what you reason is. Its the act of discrimination that breaks the law.

 

[Ravi]

Basically you want bigots to be protected if others are, correct?

I wonder if bigots can help being bigoted.

It's not bigots I'm referring to in regard to unequal protection. Protected classes, despite the nominal characterization, single out specific groups for special protection. We can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, poor people, etc... but we can't discriminate against racial minorities, or women, or religious groups. Now we're looking to add gays, and I see no good reason they should be excluded. But why should anyone be excluded?

This question usually prompts, from the more principled liberals, the notion that all discrimination should be illegal. Which seems bizarrely unworkable. The only fair solution I see is to acknowledge that all people have a fundamental human right to discriminate, for whatever reasons they like, and accept that sometimes people are going to have despicable reasons. But when they do, we can despise them. We can discriminate against them in turn.

Discrimination is how society moderates itself without resorting to coercion. Mostly it's a good thing. It's what makes public figures apologize when they say asinine things in public. It's what makes businesses brag about being 'green'. It's why people are gracious and friendly even when they'd rather not be. Asking people to turn that off, to require that all expression of disapproval be channeled through democratic government isn't feasible, nor desirable.

Do you think that someone would refuse to sell a cake to a fat person, an ugly person, or a poor person?

Not sure about the cake scenario, but these people are discriminated against all the time. By businesses, employers, and the general public. Are you saying it doesn't happen?

In what way?

Really? I gotta through a list? You've really never seen it?

Just give me a couple of examples.