Hence my Pitar comment. Go read the entry, it's rather enlightening (and hardly accidental, I'm sure).
--Patrick
Last edited:
Arizona Passes Law that Allows Discrimination
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
--Patrick
Eh, the whole "A business should be able to discriminate and the public can decide" has been around for a long time, it's really just a part of footnote in capitalism. Rush Limbaugh was pitching that shit so hard back in the 90's and at the time I remember thinking, hey, that makes sense (I was 14 and HEAVILY indoctrinated, so gimme a break), let the public decide, but then as I got older I started thinking, what kind of society do we want to live in? And all I could come up with was that our nation has spent decades and decades treating people who aren't white (and usually male) like shit, either outright killing or lynching them or telling them they aren't as human as white people and can't drink from the same fountain, go to the same schools or marry people of other races or genders (and there are still people here who believe this! In 2014!). In light of that I think it's perfectly acceptable to have the government put anti-discrimination laws in place for both hiring and customers. In fact, I might argue, if we want to live in a civilized society we need it. Granted, that isn't pure capitalism, but I'm ok with that.
I do find it interesting @PatrThom that you think it's ok for a business owner to kick people out based on his personal bias but be forced by the government to hire people that they don't like. Why is the government right to force me as a business owner to have to hire anyone who I don't want to? Especially when in your ideology I can tell everyone I don't like to get out of my store?
Keep in mind, I don't think people who believe this ideology are bad, it makes sense if you have bought into a purely market driven ideology.
I do find it interesting @PatrThom that you think it's ok for a business owner to kick people out based on his personal bias but be forced by the government to hire people that they don't like. Why is the government right to force me as a business owner to have to hire anyone who I don't want to? Especially when in your ideology I can tell everyone I don't like to get out of my store?
Keep in mind, I don't think people who believe this ideology are bad, it makes sense if you have bought into a purely market driven ideology.
Because it would be unfair for a business to mandate the actions of a populace (since it would reduce choice, and besides, that's a government's job), but it is desireable for a populace to exert control over a business, because competition leads to better goods and services/lower prices.
--Patrick
While I get the idea of it being good for business (I don't agree, but I understand the theory and get why people do), but I'm afraid I'm not getting the first half of your statement. How is me not being allowed to discriminate in my hiring process me controlling the public? Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet (or EVER?) but could you explain that a bit more?
I've mentioned it in the various middle-class/income inequality threads, but I know I wasn't speaking specifically to this. An individual has to have money* to survive, much like a car has to have gas in its tank to go. Businesses also need money in their tanks in order to function. Businesses get money from people (or each other), and people get their their money from businesses (or each other). Sure, there are statistical anomalies ("striking it rich"), but pretty much this is how the model works. There's a chain with individuals on the bottom and larger and larger businesses as you climb upwards. People give companies labor, which the companies convert into money, and people give money to companies (or each other) for which they receive labor (or the fruits of labor). If this cycle becomes unbalanced, one side or the other will wither and (probably) die.
Either way you look at it, exerting the above-mentioned discretionary behavior chooses who gets to live or die. Generally, a business which gives lousy service goes out of business, which benefits society because the remaining business(es) smarten up lest they suffer the same fate. Incidentally, this is the same reason why a monopoly is bad. Plenty of examples out there of how monopolies cause stagnation, poor product/service, etc., so I won't list any. However, when a business takes money from everyone but returns it (i.e., via wages) to only a select few (especially if multiple businesses all decide to exclude the same group), then the businesses are, quite literally, deciding which populations get to live and which get to die. Now I'm not saying that the welfare of the People should be a business' primary concern, but a business should not be allowed to actively seek to exclude individuals from employment for reasons which are not specifically related to that employment.
tl;dr: It is ok for a person to starve a business, but not ok for a business to starve a person.
--Patrick
*this doesn't have to be cash. It could be credits, resources, or whatever.
Another practical concern I just thought of: would you want to eat a cake that someone was forced to make for you against their will? Let alone subject your wedding guests to it.
This isn't forbidding a discriminatory action or policy. This is the government actively forcing a business to provide a service that they do not wish to provide.
Honest, non-rhetorical question: if the situation was reversed, and a couple shopping for a wedding cake go into a bakery, find out it is run by a gay couple, then say something nasty and refuse to shop there because of it, should the government step in to force them to get their cake there?
This isn't forbidding a discriminatory action or policy. This is the government actively forcing a business to provide a service that they do not wish to provide.
Honest, non-rhetorical question: if the situation was reversed, and a couple shopping for a wedding cake go into a bakery, find out it is run by a gay couple, then say something nasty and refuse to shop there because of it, should the government step in to force them to get their cake there?
But by refusing service to a select group (let's say, the Jews, because it's easy to type out and makes the argument more "obvious" than "homosexuals" to many people for some reason), a company can quite certainly starve people to death. There are many, many regions where, especially relatively poor, people don't really have a choice, without an actual monopoly being in place. Five hospitals but only one capable of doing heart surgery in a 100 mile radius? Better hope that one doesn't exclude you as a patient. One big cheap supermarket in the area, and 25 small mom-and-pop shops, and the cheap discounter doesn't like your kind? Too bad, you'll be spending 20% more on life necessities - oops.
In the long run this may prove fatal to those excluding businesses - but a business can last much, much longer than any one individual.
As far as I'm concerned, there are only a few acceptable reasons to refuse service (giving a drunk more alcohol, for example, is illegal because public intoxication is illegal). Personal preference is not one of them, and the European definition of "freedom of religion" pretty much means religion is and should be a personal choice.
Fair enough, but I guess from a practical capitalist point of view I still don't see a difference.
My main point in all of this, and again, one that I haven't gotten a good answer for from any source (not just here) is primarily theological (as when things are brought up as "Christian" in nature, thats my primary concern and my area of study). I find the notion of someone becoming responsible for someone else's "sin" by allowing them to purchase goods from your store to be both hypocritical and completely devoid of theological backing. As Stienman said, people MAY believe that but I'm very concerned about what their source of that information is. It's not biblical from what I can tell and other than pundits spouting it I can't really find any sort of theological source for the idea. Which makes it REALLY hard for me to take it seriously as a religious concern. EVEN IF IT WAS theologically sound then the bill these folks put together wouldn't be about just the LGBT crowd, it would be about EVERYONE who sins and it would completely annihilate their customer base because the bible is enormously clear that we are ALL sinners. I'm NOT saying people don't believe this, I am saying I can't find a way to understand it that isn't shockingly hypocritical and devoid of any real theological backing. So I assume the real motive is political and/or personal.
Espy - I think hardly anyone, not even stienman, is really saying any good Christian should behave this way or feel this way. The discussion seems to have moved on to whether or not such a law allowing religious discrimination - any sort - should be acceptable.
Anyone who truly feels this is what Jesus would've wanted...Well, they're modelling themselves after the Pharisees, not Jesus. This is a feeling I very often (practically any time there's a debate about homosexuality/forgiveness/right and wrong/love/etc, really) have about many of the American-right-Christian-groups, by the way.
Anyone who truly feels this is what Jesus would've wanted...Well, they're modelling themselves after the Pharisees, not Jesus. This is a feeling I very often (practically any time there's a debate about homosexuality/forgiveness/right and wrong/love/etc, really) have about many of the American-right-Christian-groups, by the way.
What I'm saying is that there are 2 distinct arguments made around this issue by it's supporters:
1) It's a religious freedom issue. (i.e., this is the political argument): The government shouldn't be allowed to force business owners who are religious to serve people they don't want to serve. This argument is way more about politics and what the government can and can't do that anything else.
2) The Theological argument (i.e., the real religious debate): That if a religious person serves a GLBT person they are culpable for that persons sins (i.e., if I make a cake for your wedding I will be held accountable for the sin of gay marriage).
The first argument is totally valid, it's an important one in fact because it's about what kind of society we want to live in and what kind of government we want to have (it's one that I thought we settled back when we got rid of Jim Crow but, alright, if we need to have it every few decades so be it).
The second I don't think is valid because from what I can tell it doesn't have any actual religious basis. At least not in mainstream Christianity. It's not biblical, it's counter to both what Jesus did and how he acted and EVEN if we agreed that the GLBT lifestyle was a "sin" there's nothing in the bible about you selling someone something and suddenly becoming responsible or held accountable for their sin. So I'm calling BS on that argument.
After reading more peoples reactions to this here's what I think is REALLY going on here:
People are TERRIFIED. Specifically evangelicals who have been raised on a diet of end-times literature and movies (where the government persecutes christians and takes away all their rights) and right-wing punditry who spend more time stoking fear than discussing anything relevant. I've seen no less than 10 posts on FB today from people claiming this is merely 1 step towards the government forcing private religious institutions (churches) to perform gay marriages (or face… prison? Death? Maybe, who knows what OBAMA is capable of???).
People are afraid because their intake of media is fear based. This isn't' about GLBT issues and it's not even about sin. It's about fear and trying to control something, in this case the government, in order to feel some level of safety.
Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts.
1) It's a religious freedom issue. (i.e., this is the political argument): The government shouldn't be allowed to force business owners who are religious to serve people they don't want to serve. This argument is way more about politics and what the government can and can't do that anything else.
2) The Theological argument (i.e., the real religious debate): That if a religious person serves a GLBT person they are culpable for that persons sins (i.e., if I make a cake for your wedding I will be held accountable for the sin of gay marriage).
The first argument is totally valid, it's an important one in fact because it's about what kind of society we want to live in and what kind of government we want to have (it's one that I thought we settled back when we got rid of Jim Crow but, alright, if we need to have it every few decades so be it).
The second I don't think is valid because from what I can tell it doesn't have any actual religious basis. At least not in mainstream Christianity. It's not biblical, it's counter to both what Jesus did and how he acted and EVEN if we agreed that the GLBT lifestyle was a "sin" there's nothing in the bible about you selling someone something and suddenly becoming responsible or held accountable for their sin. So I'm calling BS on that argument.
After reading more peoples reactions to this here's what I think is REALLY going on here:
People are TERRIFIED. Specifically evangelicals who have been raised on a diet of end-times literature and movies (where the government persecutes christians and takes away all their rights) and right-wing punditry who spend more time stoking fear than discussing anything relevant. I've seen no less than 10 posts on FB today from people claiming this is merely 1 step towards the government forcing private religious institutions (churches) to perform gay marriages (or face… prison? Death? Maybe, who knows what OBAMA is capable of???).
People are afraid because their intake of media is fear based. This isn't' about GLBT issues and it's not even about sin. It's about fear and trying to control something, in this case the government, in order to feel some level of safety.
Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts.
Dave
Staff member
DING DING DING!!
If someone refused to bake me a cake because I was an old white guy I'd shake my head at their stupidity and go to a different establishment, not sue them or call the papers.
I'm totally against this law and think that homosexuals should be able to get married if they want - it's an issue of equality and human dignity to me - but I also think that the bakery that was sued was done so stupidly.
One of the people I heard talking about this was also talking about the Ugandan law and they said (I paraphrase), "We struck a good balance of private and family life in the 1940s and 50s." So some of those trying to pass these laws really are stuck in the past and can't let it go.
Oh, I should add, it's worth realizing that Stienman and I are from very different sides of Christianity, I know next to nothing about the Latter Day Saints theology so I can't speak for it. I can only speak from my knowledge of mainstream Protestant Christianity.
I will say this, there ARE people suing churches who won't marry LGBT couples. I think thats bullshit and thankfully they seem to be getting tossed out of the court system. You want equality thats great, but you can't force private religious institutions to perform ceremonies for you and people trying to do it are being serious dicks and hurting their movement as much as people pushing this kind of legislation IMO.
Totally agree, but I assume a big par tot the reason people are suing is because of the discrimination issue, not because they really want the cake.
I will say this, there ARE people suing churches who won't marry LGBT couples. I think thats bullshit and thankfully they seem to be getting tossed out of the court system. You want equality thats great, but you can't force private religious institutions to perform ceremonies for you and people trying to do it are being serious dicks and hurting their movement as much as people pushing this kind of legislation IMO.
Would you call the papers if a restaurant refused to serve someone because he was black? He probably doesn't want to eat there anymore, but should he just quietly walk away and accept it?
I feel like that's a good litmus test in a lot of things. Replace homosexual with black, and then see if you think there's a civil rights violation.
Your example doesn't fit the statement there, the objection from those that have refused to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't that they can't serve a GLBT person, as evidenced by the fact that they're alright with a GLBT buying some other cake from them (or at least, they claim they are). To be honest, I haven't heard someone put forward that extreme of an idea, that simply serving someone makes you cupable for their sins (which doesn't mean there aren't any). As Stienman said eariler, the main objection from certain religious business people is having to participate in the act they find morally objectionable, it's their personal involvment in the sin (from their perspective) they have a problem with. Which is more theologically sound, assuming their theological basis for finding that act morally objectionable in the first place is sound (which is a totally different discussion entirely).
I've seen it discussed in several ways but the predominant view I've encountered has been that if you sell something to someone who is living a sinful lifestyle (in this case, being gay) then you are at best condoning their sin and at worst responsible for their sin (or committing a sin of equal value) since you are enabling it. Pick your take on it, I don't really care, it all amounts to the same thing. I'm interested in the theological conclusion to the argument. We can spend all day arguing about which step in the process is actually the step that is sinful or whose sin it is but if people weren't feeling like there was something happening that God would disapprove of here there wouldn't be a problem. Either way, I don't believe you are going to find a biblical reason behind it other than "well, the gays are an abomination to the Lord".
Dave
Staff member
The main difference is right now at this time it's illegal to do that with black people and not those with sexual preferences that make you feel icky. I think both are wrong and stupid, but they should be working to change the laws, not punish someone because you disagree with who didn't breaking any.
In the end, yes, they think the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, and without that we wouldn't have this issue. Still, like I said, the objection to personal involvement in the alledged sin is the main argument I've seen, so focusing on those that object to serving anyone "living a sinful lifestyle" (which as you mentioned, makes no sense since everyone is) is less useful simply because there are far fewer of them and even the people in the first group can think those in the second are off their rockers.
The only way the gay movement actually gets traction is through the courts. The only friend they have is the fourteenth amendment. Laws are not being made for them at this point in time. Just like abortion, people are trying to enact laws against them, and only where they are able to prove that laws are unfairly discriminatory do they make headway.Dave said:
This is obviously not what society wants, so they aren't going to make headway going the legislative route. Only via courts will they find legal sympathy.
They have to choose easy targets for these lawsuits.
So while you may think it's mean to punish someone for their religious beliefs, the reality is that since they oppose society as a whole, they have to target individual members of society, beat them up publicly, make an example of them, and get the laws changed to their favor.
Fortunately they are in the enviable position of being a protected class of citizen, so any efforts to retaliate under the first amendment may be classed a hate crime, and at minimum will eat up time and resources in a civil suit.
It's a one way street all the way, and the outcome is obvious.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed along the way. Strong laws and strong rulings can only be made under strenuous opposition.
I'm not sure what it is, but the wording of this post makes me very uncomfortable, and I can't seem to vocalize why. I think I'm just going to bow out.
Dave
Staff member
Or maybe it has to do with a large amount of money being funneled in by out-of-state religious zealots using scare tactics.
Votes on legislation are almost never based on the majority of society. It's based on the majority of the voters and the majority of voters tend to be older, white men who come from suburban areas. That's just Political Science fact.
In almost every (if not every) State, votes on legislation are between 10-30% of registered voters actually vote on. If you use the even worse percentage of voting age people (VAP) the turnout is even worse, in some states reaching single digits. Very very far from -majority of people- having expressed their opinion on the subject. Believe it or not, the people voting on this type of legislation ARE the minority.
Last edited:
Well, the LDS Church is pretty egregious of that, using their weight to oppose gay rights legislation anywhere they can.
Dismissing voting out of hand... Might as well invalidate the last few presidential elections then. Lots of money spent on specific demographic targets.
If the peoples will is truly to enact gay marriage nationwide, then it shouldn't be a problem to use the legislative process to do so.
They aren't. They are using the courts to force their beliefs through the system.
Go ahead and explain how even though a majority want gay marriage, they can't do it through the normal legislative process.
Oh, and consider the questions being asked in the polls you are using as your basis for what society wants.
Some polls ask "do you support gay marriage" and typically they show worse results than those that ask, "do you oppose gay marriage". In the second case, it appears that opposition is lower than 50%, but in the first case actual active support is less than 50%.
You've dismissed voting, I suppose next you'll need to dismiss the polls that don't match your preconceived notions, right?
But the reality is that the country has become polarized on this issue, and talking about the minor difference in numbers on each side is probably splitting hairs.
I think I can still stand by my statement that this is not what society actively wants, although you could equally make the claim that society isn't actively opposed to it either.[DOUBLEPOST=1393539036,1393538852][/DOUBLEPOST]Note that I haven't looked at this years polls. Society is adapting over time, and maybe things are different today, but again, the point is that the normal legislative process is failing to get traction, and the courts are, which usually means that there's a disconnect with society at the heart of the issue.
I'm not actually all that interested in getting into an argument about what society wants. Just that the current tactics seem to suggest one thing about society's view.
If the peoples will is truly to enact gay marriage nationwide, then it shouldn't be a problem to use the legislative process to do so.
They aren't. They are using the courts to force their beliefs through the system.
Go ahead and explain how even though a majority want gay marriage, they can't do it through the normal legislative process.
Oh, and consider the questions being asked in the polls you are using as your basis for what society wants.
Some polls ask "do you support gay marriage" and typically they show worse results than those that ask, "do you oppose gay marriage". In the second case, it appears that opposition is lower than 50%, but in the first case actual active support is less than 50%.
You've dismissed voting, I suppose next you'll need to dismiss the polls that don't match your preconceived notions, right?
But the reality is that the country has become polarized on this issue, and talking about the minor difference in numbers on each side is probably splitting hairs.
I think I can still stand by my statement that this is not what society actively wants, although you could equally make the claim that society isn't actively opposed to it either.[DOUBLEPOST=1393539036,1393538852][/DOUBLEPOST]Note that I haven't looked at this years polls. Society is adapting over time, and maybe things are different today, but again, the point is that the normal legislative process is failing to get traction, and the courts are, which usually means that there's a disconnect with society at the heart of the issue.
I'm not actually all that interested in getting into an argument about what society wants. Just that the current tactics seem to suggest one thing about society's view.
Dave
Staff member
I'm not dismissing votes, I'm just not foolish enough to believe that votes = popular opinion. The thing about hot topics like this is that the ones who are the most likely to vote are the ones who really give a shit. So if you are really against something you are more likely to get out than those who don't care. As a scientist, I think you'd be all over the fact that a scientific poll is a better measure than a vote that had less than 20% of registered showing up.
@stienman - If you can look at Political Science facts and just dismiss them because you don't believe they're right, well there's just nothing else that can be said.
It's not hard to understand:
The majority of people in America are FOR same sex marriage. It's what the MAJORITY of accurate polling results.
The majority of people in America DON'T VOTE. It's not even close to half.
The majority of people who DO VOTE are not in the demographics that are FOR same sex marriage.
That is just a fact man, you can't disagree with it because you don't like it.
It's not hard to understand:
The majority of people in America are FOR same sex marriage. It's what the MAJORITY of accurate polling results.
The majority of people in America DON'T VOTE. It's not even close to half.
The majority of people who DO VOTE are not in the demographics that are FOR same sex marriage.
That is just a fact man, you can't disagree with it because you don't like it.
Why is using courts an illegitimate way to consolidate one's rights within the system? Yes, one can use specific legislation, but going to court with some cases can be considered to be forcing society to be coherent with laws it already had in place.
As in, I don't want to be discriminated, but I won't try to push a new law for this because there's already anti-discrimination laws that protect me. Instead, I'll force you to admit that they apply to me as well because (I'm not a second class citizen, I'm not who I am by choice, Your reasons to bypasse these laws are invalid. Your pick).
As in, I don't want to be discriminated, but I won't try to push a new law for this because there's already anti-discrimination laws that protect me. Instead, I'll force you to admit that they apply to me as well because (I'm not a second class citizen, I'm not who I am by choice, Your reasons to bypasse these laws are invalid. Your pick).
GasBandit
Staff member
Federal judges are not elected, but rather are appointed. There's a hazy area between due scrutiny of a law's constitutionality and what we call "Legislating from the bench." AKA "Judicial activism." That's considered an overreach of their power. It's been a noticed trend for liberal causes to be unable to get passage through legislature (where a majority of lawmakers beholden to myriad interests must all fall into line) and instead, the activists get what they want by finding just the right judge to flex their muscles and accomplish what was failed in legislature.
I typed up a kind of mean post, and I can't remember if I posted it (and it was deleted?) or if I used better judgment and didn't hit the reply button
GasBandit
Staff member
No, you posted it, and it was apparently deleted.
Dave
Staff member
I removed it. It was mean.