consiglieri wrote:I thought America was supposed to be about the individual's right to be an asshole.
In many ways yes. I would say it is more about the right to say what you like. One can be as big of an asshole in how much they don't like little old ladies, but they shouldn't be able to be an asshole and go around pushing them to the ground. See the difference?
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Enzo the Baker wrote:I'm with you, EA. As ugly as bigotry is, I don't believe gov't on any level should have the power to penalize anyone and or business for their thick-headed prejudices. The way to defeat the small-mindedness is by not patronizing the offending establishments. Organized boycotting would either close the business or effect the desired change.
For me the issue is about protecting the rights of everyone. While boycotting a business may be a tool in dealing with thickheadedness, ones thickheadedness should not allow them to violate the rights of others. So stop pushing little old ladies to the ground.
Enzo the Baker wrote:I'm with you, EA. As ugly as bigotry is, I don't believe gov't on any level should have the power to penalize anyone and or business for their thick-headed prejudices. The way to defeat the small-mindedness is by not patronizing the offending establishments. Organized boycotting would either close the business or effect the desired change.
For me the issue is about protecting the rights of everyone. While boycotting a business may be a tool in dealing with thickheadedness, ones thickheadedness should not allow them to violate the rights of others. So stop pushing little old ladies to the ground.
I'm not sexist, Themis. I also push little old men to the ground as well as children significantly smaller than myself.
They deserve every bit of that fine. They could have simply said no and gave no reason why. Instead they pushed the issue. You are still free to discriminate all you wish in this country. The message should be, just don't be a fool about it.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
consiglieri wrote:I thought America was supposed to be about the individual's right to be an asshole.
That right is alive and well in general, but haven't the federal courts carved out an exception for businesses (under the commerce clause or something similar) since the days (50's or 60's) when restaurants/hotels refused to serve African-Americans?
As public accommodations, restaurants and hotels have been prohibited from discriminating against any of the protected classes identified in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and such has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a valid exercise of power by Congress given to the federal government by the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
While gender is a protected classification forbidden to be the basis of discrimination in the Civil Rights Act, sexual orientation is not a protected classification.
The Oregon law goes further, both in protecting sexual orientation against discrimination and broadening from just public accommodations (like hotels and restaurants) to any business that is not a religious organization or school.
Enzo the Baker wrote: For me the issue is about protecting the rights of everyone. While boycotting a business may be a tool in dealing with thickheadedness, ones thickheadedness should not allow them to violate the rights of others. So stop pushing little old ladies to the ground.
Phrasing it this way looks like begging the question. You are arguing people should have a right not to be discriminated against by private businesses and saying this is justified because they have a right not to be discriminated against by private businesses. I think people's right to freedom of association trumps the social good derived from restricting people's desire to discriminate on their private property in certain ways. I do not view private businesses as public spaces in the way the rationale for these law contend. I think a restaurant should be allowed not to serve gays for the same reason I think you should be allowed to not allow gays in your house.
This viewpoint remains a small minority position in part because anyone advocating it is very quickly seen as someone who favors the discrimination, with a more particular sneaking suspicion that they are racists. Allowing people to discriminate is often confused with Jim Crow, though Jim Crow was about the government mandating businesses to discriminate, not persevering their right to do so.
I do think consumer behavior is largely up to the task of creating a relatively non-discriminatory environment, and changes in the law tend to lag shifts in societal attitudes. In instances where a person faces lack of access to a desired service, I view that as an unfortunate cost of the greater good of liberty. A woman who is 50 miles into racist territory without a hotel to stay at might as well be 50 miles where no hotel exists.
Tobin wrote:They deserve every bit of that fine. They could have simply said no and gave no reason why. Instead they pushed the issue. You are still free to discriminate all you wish in this country. The message should be, just don't be a fool about it.
Good point. Being out to lunch causes no hard feelings but taking up the cudgel of bigotry while dressed as the Reverend Cotton Mather is just plain foolish!
EAllusion wrote: I think people's right to freedom of association trumps the social good derived from restricting people's desire to discriminate on their private property in certain ways.
I think SP describes my thinking quite well.
I do not view private businesses as public spaces in the way the rationale for these law contend. I think a restaurant should be allowed not to serve gays for the same reason I think you should be allowed to not allow gays in your house.
A private business wanting to be open to the public. I think these issues can be fuzzy, but I think it obvious why we in many cases we should not allow some kinds of discrimination from private businesses.
This viewpoint remains a small minority position in part because anyone advocating it is very quickly seen as someone who favors the discrimination, with a more particular sneaking suspicion that they are racists.
Racism has been a main reason for people with the private businesses discriminating against others, but I think more people are just seeing not all reasons to discriminate should be legal.
I think these issues can be fuzzy, but I think it obvious why we in many cases we should not allow some kinds of discrimination from private businesses.
I think businesses should be able to discriminate against nonpayers. But even that is not permitted in many cases.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
