AZ SB 1062 discrimination against LGBT

Post Reply New Topic

[Moved from News and Current Events to PPR]

So, the almighty, all good, and all knowing free market is going to make all good and equal, huh? Well, the free market is only what people make of it, and in the south - and plenty of other parts of the country in those days - most whites were still under the opinion that they didn't want black patrons, even at the expense of their business. After all, Jim Crow laws didn't just spring up from the minds of those evil, evil government officials, but represented the will of the white majority, who saw fit to continue the existence of such laws, till they were abolished by the federal government. And while there is still barely hidden racism in the south and other parts of the country, there has also been a great degree of personal growth and acceptance among many whites, who would never return to Jim Crow had they the chance. And this is only because they've grown up seeing blacks and other races given equal treatment in everyday life, being able to eat of shop where ever they damn well please thanks to federal intervention.

There is no requirement for critical thinking when your own government has clear guidelines
The US Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Love it. From an atheist's perspective this is exactly the message that Christianity should stay focused on. Excellent. It is completely turning off the younger generation.

If I were gay, and there were cake shops which didn't want to make my wedding cake because of my sexual orientation, I would prefer that they be allowed to say so openly. That way I wouldn't inadvertently give my custom to a bigot.

what a concept- if things had turned out differently, businesses would be free [indeed obligated] to advertise on the one hand, that they don't serve [fill in the blank], while other businesses would advertise they DO serve [fill in the blank] but NOT the ones served by the other businesses. should this have happened, I believe it would only have served to make for more societal divisiveness, more exclusive cliques. there are some for whom that is a vision of heaven on earth, but not for this aspergler. communitarians and individualists are sorta like the east and west Rudyard Kipling wrote about, of which "never the twain shall meet."

You don't know what begging the question actually means, do you?

You're almost there! Lets see if I can get you over the finish line.

"Bad" government, in the form of the Jim Crow south, was oppressing some of it's citizens, until "good" government, in the form of the feds, stepped in and stopped them. What is there stopping the situation from happening in reverse? There's certainly historical precedent for as long as there have been governments, and everyone thinks that their own personal views are right and just, which doesn't change when they go to work for the state. The only rational response is to restrain the power of the state, lest some zealots seize control and use it's power to impose their own personal morality on everyone. But you're okay with that, so long as it's your morality being enforced at gunpoint, in fact you're on the record as saying that views you personally find repugnant justify murder by the state. Maybe you ought to look inward a bit before your knee starts jerking again.

Last edited by Dox47 on 24 Feb 2014, 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, right, sorry, forgot who I was talking to for a moment.

The legal reasoning is perfectly clear to me, so it isn't just a blind assertion. If you don't understand the essential difference between a house and a shop, then it's on you to educate yourself. I can easily predict your reply if I went to the trouble of finding and posting the case law, can't you? Your question indicates that you've already decided that it is an arbitrary and purely semantic distinction.

In a fair market place, where goods and services were evenly distributed, I would certainly agree that there is no need to require businesses offering goods and services to the public to avoid discrimination on prohibited grounds.

But it is not a fair marketplace. Businesses have inequality of bargaining power; and supply is a far greater constraint on transactions than demand. If business owners feel that they have enough potential custom that they can turn away potential paying customers, that demonstrates that supply is in control of the market.

So when one side has an unfair level of control in the market, who can come in an address that? In a perfectly fair marketplace, new entrants could do that. But new entry requires the commitment of working capital--another supply controlled limitation. That is why non-discrimination regulation must exist in the marketplace. Because the marketplace isn't completely fair, and the marketplace is not equipped to address the unfairness that exists, or can potentially exist wthin it.

When your ideals serve the interests of bigots, you should take a critical eye to your ideals.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. What the federal government did was clearly right. The Jim Crow laws, on the other hand, were clearly wrong because they had been based on hate and racism. It's not just my opinion about what's right, but a simple moral fact. Standing up for the rights of the despised and powerless when they are oppressed is never wrong.
When you say the power of the state should be restrained, it's obvious you're talking about the federal government. That leaves local and state governments to abuse the rights of whoever they see fit - in other words, that's where those zealots you mentioned seizing power more often than not in this country do. No, the role of the federal government is to step in and defend those who can't defend themselves.

You haven't posted any case law, you've simply included a conclusion in your exposition without actually taking the time to explain and justify that conclusion, instead merely stating it as a proven fact that you're basing your position on, a perfect example of the informal fallacy of circular reasoning.
I'm perfectly aware of what the law says, in this case I just am not interested in the law, but in the ethics of and rationale behind it, which is what you seem to be having some trouble grasping.

I've just learned on CNN today that this idiot law on Jan Brewer's desk is being opposed by not only many in Arizona's business community, but also by some state representatives who had originally voted for the bill, but now fear the national backlash they've brought down on their state. It seems the only people who have a raging boner for this bill are socially conservative nutbars.

This sounds very close to arguing against free speech because it enables "hate speech"; if we deny rights to those we personally find repugnant, than we're no more than hypocrites. I don't particularly care that bigots might benefit from my ideals, as my belief in them is predicated on the thought that everyone would be better for them.

Besides which, I think your previous analysis, which I snipped out for brevity's sake, completely fails to account for the presence of the internet as a cudgel for businesses that decide that they don't like making money, both in the calling attention to role and in the alternative supply role.

And you call other people 'bigot' with a straight face...