AZ SB 1062 discrimination against LGBT

Page 4 of 9 [ 137 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,509
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2014, 4:06 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

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.

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

Pretty much, yeah.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

24 Feb 2014, 4:12 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

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.

Prove it. If it's not just your opinion, than you should have no problem providing a formula for determining right from wrong without relying on anything that is just your opinion. I'll wait.

Kraichgauer wrote:

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.

When have I ever said that I want unrestrained state governments? Did I not just say that the source of the Jim Crow laws was the state governments, and that if they had not been allowed to pass those laws that racial rapprochement could have proceeded much more quickly without the government interfering with the rights of citizens to choose who they do business with? I believe that the states should have fairly wide latitude within their own borders, that's the whole "incubators for democracy" idea of our system, but I've never believed that the states or any other part of the government has the power to enshrine discrimination in law or policy, as they exist to serve their citizens, all of them.

You, by contrast, seem to want to pick and choose, cheering the states defying the feds on marijuana and gay marriage, while calling for the federal jackboot when they do something you don't personally support. For all your claims of morality, you're not very ethical, you do know that right?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,509
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2014, 4:37 pm

And who's going to restrain the state governments, if not the federal government? And lest you forget, state and local governments enacted Jim Crow because they clearly represented their white constituents. Those prejudices just would not have gone away on their own without some sort of intervention, and reeducation - and if that isn't the province of the federal government, then whose is it?
And prove right and wrong? Really? Besides the Judeo-Christian ethic within our culture enshrining the worth of the individual, it must also be pointed out that in the civil realm, our very government philosophy is based on the notion that "all men are created equal," meaning that any racial or sexual discrimination runs counter to the very idea America was founded on. While there are moral issues that in real life are shaded in gray, there are others, particularly regarding people's equal rights and equal worth under the law that is absolute.
And if I pick and choose which issues I support, it's only because I care about people's rights - especially regarding those rights of the few and the despised, who regularly get a raw deal. And that's exactly the case of blacks in the Jim Crow south, and today with what gays are potentially facing in Arizona.
If you think my taking the side I think is just makes me unethical, then I will proudly wear that designation of yours as a badge of pride.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

24 Feb 2014, 5:43 pm

Dox47 wrote:

jrjones9933 wrote:

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.

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.

So, ethics and reason had no place in the legal opinions which comprise the case law? This belief on your part makes it fruitless to elucidate that reasoning.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

24 Feb 2014, 6:26 pm

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

24 Feb 2014, 6:47 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:

So, ethics and reason had no place in the legal opinions which comprise the case law? This belief on your part makes it fruitless to elucidate that reasoning.

Please point out where I have said this, and kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth in the future. You haven't posted a legal opinion, or even the case law, you simply keep making these circular logic statements without ever even attempting to justify the reasoning behind them. Ironically, your criticism applies to yourself far more than it applies to me.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,509
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2014, 7:05 pm

auntblabby wrote:

Sounds good to me.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

24 Feb 2014, 7:42 pm

Dox47 wrote:

jrjones9933 wrote:

So, ethics and reason had no place in the legal opinions which comprise the case law? This belief on your part makes it fruitless to elucidate that reasoning.

If you're interested in the ethics and rationale behind the law, then look it up yourself! Why you think the burden of proof is on me to explain to you the difference between a shop and a home, I simply cannot understand. If you say you're not interested in the law, but only in the ethics and reasoning, that does strongly suggest that you don't believe that ethics and reasoning went into making the law, or at least that you deny their validity. Again, burden of proof, on you.

Your case for the ethics and reasoning behind this Arizona law? Explain how a shop is exactly like a house, please.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,916
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 Feb 2014, 12:00 am

Dox47 wrote:

jrjones9933 wrote:

If you want to run a business that discriminates against people, just run it as a private club. If you are open to the public, then you lose the right to discriminate against people on the basis of fundamental traits. No one's private property rights are infringed, because a public accommodation is no longer private property.

You're begging the question here, stating that being open to the public causes you to lose your right of freedom of association without actually providing a rationale, simply asserting it as true. Last I checked, running a business on private property does not affect ownership of said property, so yes, private property rights are being infringed upon by these laws.

What good would it do to allow buisinesses to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation ect?

_________________
We won't go back.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

25 Feb 2014, 12:04 am

it enables people to continue actively hating on one another with no deterrents. it allows people to avoid people dissimilar to themselves longer.

luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner

25 Feb 2014, 12:06 am

visagrunt wrote:

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

I favor allowing bigots to experience the full consequences of their irrationality. If there is really a business owner insane enough to hang a "No gays, no minorities" sign on his shop's door, let him find out what that brings him in the age of Facebook and Twitter.

If your ideals have convinced you that you are entitled to control others' behavior at gunpoint, you really ought to check your premises.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,916
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 Feb 2014, 12:07 am

auntblabby wrote:

it enables people to continue actively hating on one another with no deterrents. it allows people to avoid people dissimilar to themselves longer.

How delightful.

_________________
We won't go back.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

25 Feb 2014, 12:16 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

How delightful.

indeed, that is some folks' idea of heaven on earth. it is my idea of hell on earth.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,509
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Feb 2014, 12:28 am

luanqibazao wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

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

Well, if Jan Brewer signs that idiot bill into law, Arizona as a whole will find out just what the avalanche of ill will by the rest of us means to that state. The NFL has implied they will not play in any stadiums in Arizona if this law is enacted. But that's exactly what the south in the days of Jim Crow experienced - little outside investment, with a bad rep for being bigots. But hey, what does that matter to the Godly, when they want to exercise their right to sh*t on "sodomites?!?!"

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Feb 2014, 2:30 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

What good would it do to allow buisinesses to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation ect?

It's not about any good coming from discrimination, it's about setting limits on what the state is allowed to compel individuals to do, as even the most well meaning interventions set precedents that can later be used in less well meaning ways. I view a business as private property the same way that I view a home as private property, that the owner should be allowed to set the rules under their own roof, up to and including the right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. As I've previously argued, few businesses are likely to engage in open discrimination in this day and age due to the social and economic consequences, and rolling back the extent to which the state is allowed to interfere in private business is a valuable thing.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Feb 2014, 2:37 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

If you think my taking the side I think is just makes me unethical, then I will proudly wear that designation of yours as a badge of pride.

Only you would take pride in a lack of ethics.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Page 4 of 9 [ 137 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

AZ SB 1062 discrimination against LGBT Post Reply New Topic

AZ SB 1062 discrimination against LGBT