Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

AZ SB 1062 discrimination against LGBT

Page 7 of 9 [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 Feb 2014, 12:32 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
The bill was vetoed about 30 minutes ago.

That's another tea Party fantasy down the drain...



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 12:46 am

Ann2011 wrote:
So you find the state to be a bigger threat than mankind unchecked?


Do you put the people who make up the state in a different category than mankind? States are subject to all the same follies and prejudices that befall the people comprise them, but their prejudices are enforced with guns and boots in the night, not with refusals to do business with people they'd rather not.


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

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 12:53 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
How is standing by my beliefs a lack of ethics?


It's not the standing by your beliefs part that is problematic, it's the way you'd go about enforcing them on others, often in ways that you'd be the first to scream about if they were used to impose the morality of others upon you. You believe in your own righteousness to the point where you use it to justify odious actions in support of them, which is, coincidentally, the mindset of zealots and fanatics the world over.


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

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 12:58 am

visagrunt wrote:
Allowing a bigot to spout racist nonsense is not on the same level as empowering a business to deny goods and services, and you know it.


I've cut this down and bolded it because it highlights the impasse we're going to have here; you talk of 'allowing' people to say what they want and 'empowering' businesses to choose their clientele, notions I reject utterly as I view both of these things as absolute natural rights due to any person and not subject to approval or disapproval by the state. I'm not arguing the law here, which we both know is on your side, but my own personal opinions.


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

- Rick Sanchez


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,761
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Feb 2014, 12:59 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
How is standing by my beliefs a lack of ethics?


It's not the standing by your beliefs part that is problematic, it's the way you'd go about enforcing them on others, often in ways that you'd be the first to scream about if they were used to impose the morality of others upon you. You believe in your own righteousness to the point where you use it to justify odious actions in support of them, which is, coincidentally, the mindset of zealots and fanatics the world over.


Who says I'm enforcing my beliefs on anyone? I'm only arguing my position. Last time I checked, I'm just an Aspie sitting behind a PC, without a pot to urinate in, and that being the case, I think it's more than fair to say I'm pretty well powerless in enforcing my will.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 1:06 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
How does disallowing business from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation, disability ect set precedents that can be later used in less well meaning ways? How exactly are those laws abused by the government? and does it really outweigh the benefits of having such laws in place? Those are the things that should be considered.


Connor Friedersdorf over at The Atlantic has a nice little piece about this:

Quote:
This whole issue strikes me as a case where coerced nondiscrimination would wind up making almost no one better off—how many people want their wedding serviced by people who object to their union?—while making a small number of Christians and most gays worse off, the former because they'll face the conscience/legal sanction dilemma, and the latter because the battle for public opinion that gays are quickly and decisively winning can only be set back by aggrieved Christian bakers in the headlines. If policymakers just do nothing, the problem will get smaller with every year that passes, because anti-gay animus is rapidly decreasing, and once it's gone, the number of religious believers who'll still object to gay weddings to the point of not selling goods to them will be minuscule.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ys/284061/

He also makes some interesting points regarding orthodox Catholics and Jews who wouldn't provides services to second weddings, weddings not sanctioned by the church, divorced people, etc.


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

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 1:07 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
How is standing by my beliefs a lack of ethics?


It's not the standing by your beliefs part that is problematic, it's the way you'd go about enforcing them on others, often in ways that you'd be the first to scream about if they were used to impose the morality of others upon you. You believe in your own righteousness to the point where you use it to justify odious actions in support of them, which is, coincidentally, the mindset of zealots and fanatics the world over.


Who says I'm enforcing my beliefs on anyone? I'm only arguing my position. Last time I checked, I'm just an Aspie sitting behind a PC, without a pot to urinate in, and that being the case, I think it's more than fair to say I'm pretty well powerless in enforcing my will.


'You'd' is a contraction of 'you would'.


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

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 1:15 am

cyberdad wrote:
So in theory the business is shooting itself in the foot by not taking your money...would you not feel inconvenienced that you now have to go somewhere else to buy something? not everything is on sale on Amazon...


And? I'm perfectly willing to live with the consequences of my beliefs, be that people saying hurtful things because I believe in free speech, criminals going unpunished because I believe in a high standard of proof of guilt, or being denied service because I believe in freedom of association when running a business.

cyberdad wrote:
I was speaking in the context of you using critical thinking as a cover for your belief that people are entitled to discriminate against clients who don;t meet their ideals of what a human being should be...


I suppose it would seem like "cover" to someone for whom the whole concept was foreign, the kind of person who'd say something like 'critical thinking isn't necessary once the government has spoken'.


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

- Rick Sanchez


Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

27 Feb 2014, 1:17 am

Dox47 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
So you find the state to be a bigger threat than mankind unchecked?


Do you put the people who make up the state in a different category than mankind? States are subject to all the same follies and prejudices that befall the people comprise them, but their prejudices are enforced with guns and boots in the night, not with refusals to do business with people they'd rather not.

No . . . any system is only as good as it's weakest link. But, when working properly, the government should provide an orderly forum for the voicing of varying opinions and allow for rules etc to be decided upon by the majority of an equally represented people.


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,761
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Feb 2014, 1:19 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
How is standing by my beliefs a lack of ethics?


It's not the standing by your beliefs part that is problematic, it's the way you'd go about enforcing them on others, often in ways that you'd be the first to scream about if they were used to impose the morality of others upon you. You believe in your own righteousness to the point where you use it to justify odious actions in support of them, which is, coincidentally, the mindset of zealots and fanatics the world over.


Who says I'm enforcing my beliefs on anyone? I'm only arguing my position. Last time I checked, I'm just an Aspie sitting behind a PC, without a pot to urinate in, and that being the case, I think it's more than fair to say I'm pretty well powerless in enforcing my will.


'You'd' is a contraction of 'you would'.


Uh... yeah... How did that come up?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 1:24 am

cyberdad wrote:
belief that people are entitled to discriminate against clients who don;t meet their ideals of what a human being should be...


I used to do handyman work, fixing people's cars and washing machines for a little extra cash. (People of modest means, of course, because if you can afford a certified technician you don't hire Joe Shadetree.) If I start doing that again, I could list a half-dozen people I would happily help for free, or for some garden vegetables or something, because they're friends and I like them. And there are two I can think of, in the neighborhood, whom I would not work for at any price, because they're as*holes. Guess I'd better prepare for lawsuits ... as*holes are clearly a protected minority now ....



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 1:25 am

Ann2011 wrote:
No . . . any system is only as good as it's weakest link. But, when working properly, the government should provide an orderly forum for the voicing of varying opinions and allow for rules etc to be decided upon by the majority of an equally represented people.


And when that majority decides that it really doesn't like a certain minority, and perhaps they should pass some laws repressing them?


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

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

27 Feb 2014, 1:26 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
How is standing by my beliefs a lack of ethics?


It's not the standing by your beliefs part that is problematic, it's the way you'd go about enforcing them on others, often in ways that you'd be the first to scream about if they were used to impose the morality of others upon you. You believe in your own righteousness to the point where you use it to justify odious actions in support of them, which is, coincidentally, the mindset of zealots and fanatics the world over.


Who says I'm enforcing my beliefs on anyone? I'm only arguing my position. Last time I checked, I'm just an Aspie sitting behind a PC, without a pot to urinate in, and that being the case, I think it's more than fair to say I'm pretty well powerless in enforcing my will.


'You'd' is a contraction of 'you would'.


Uh... yeah... How did that come up?


Read the whole quote chain. Slowly, if you have to.


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

- Rick Sanchez


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,011
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2014, 1:26 am

Dox47 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
So you find the state to be a bigger threat than mankind unchecked?


Do you put the people who make up the state in a different category than mankind? States are subject to all the same follies and prejudices that befall the people comprise them, but their prejudices are enforced with guns and boots in the night, not with refusals to do business with people they'd rather not.


Yes if a buisness refuses to serve someone because of their sexual orientation or race, the gestapo will come for you in the night with their boots and guns and throw you in the concentration camp with a few kicks. Realistically since that does violate discrimination laws they might face legal consequences but not so sure they'll be taken out behind the shed and shot to death by men with guns.


_________________
We won't go back.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,761
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Feb 2014, 1:28 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
How is standing by my beliefs a lack of ethics?


It's not the standing by your beliefs part that is problematic, it's the way you'd go about enforcing them on others, often in ways that you'd be the first to scream about if they were used to impose the morality of others upon you. You believe in your own righteousness to the point where you use it to justify odious actions in support of them, which is, coincidentally, the mindset of zealots and fanatics the world over.


Who says I'm enforcing my beliefs on anyone? I'm only arguing my position. Last time I checked, I'm just an Aspie sitting behind a PC, without a pot to urinate in, and that being the case, I think it's more than fair to say I'm pretty well powerless in enforcing my will.


'You'd' is a contraction of 'you would'.


Uh... yeah... How did that come up?


Read the whole quote chain. Slowly, if you have to.


I have no interest in chasing down the accidental misuse of a contraction or whatever I did.
Are you becoming a grammar Nazi now?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,011
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2014, 1:29 am

Dox47 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
How does disallowing business from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation, disability ect set precedents that can be later used in less well meaning ways? How exactly are those laws abused by the government? and does it really outweigh the benefits of having such laws in place? Those are the things that should be considered.


Connor Friedersdorf over at The Atlantic has a nice little piece about this:

Quote:
This whole issue strikes me as a case where coerced nondiscrimination would wind up making almost no one better off—how many people want their wedding serviced by people who object to their union?—while making a small number of Christians and most gays worse off, the former because they'll face the conscience/legal sanction dilemma, and the latter because the battle for public opinion that gays are quickly and decisively winning can only be set back by aggrieved Christian bakers in the headlines. If policymakers just do nothing, the problem will get smaller with every year that passes, because anti-gay animus is rapidly decreasing, and once it's gone, the number of religious believers who'll still object to gay weddings to the point of not selling goods to them will be minuscule.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ys/284061/

He also makes some interesting points regarding orthodox Catholics and Jews who wouldn't provides services to second weddings, weddings not sanctioned by the church, divorced people, etc.


It might start with buisinesses refusing service to homosexuals....and you honestly can't see how that might be a slippery slope.? I just don't see the use in repealing discrimination laws just so bigots can feel their bigotry is protected.


_________________
We won't go back.