US Politics: the business of America is business

[Larry of the Lawn]

Agreed. Which is why I specified businesses, churches, other private groups, and individuals. Look at what I was responding to originally. The law mentioned would compel people to act against their religious beliefs in a private setting. That isn't tolerance or legal equality - it's creepy social engineering.

Yes (in an ideal world). I trust you realize that supporting the right to do so does not mean I support the decision to

Moronic. Free association is like legal murder?

I wasn't aware that was currently illegal. I'd fully support you in that venture though :love:

I hold disdain for many kinds of people. Homosexuals are not one of them. People who don't observe the liberty of others, including the liberty to be a bigot, are

What's unconstitutional is infringing on the religious freedom of Christians to practice their beliefs. This is clearly about forcing acceptance and even celebration of gay couples on those who are otherwise inclined, and has nothing to do with freedom. No one has a right to force someone else to take part in their wedding, or serve them a meal, or provide them birth control, or pretend to approve of their sexuality.

How about we pass a law mandating that secular atheists and practicing Catholics help with polygamist Islamic weddings? How about we force Mosques and Synagogues to allow same-sex kissing within their walls?

You're just drawing the line in a different place. We already have laws that prevent people from exercising their religious freedoms. Some churches have to actively apply to be able to use certain drugs in rituals. Honor killings don't fly in this country. You could start a religion where an important part of it is human sacrifice, and guess what, the big bad government is going to step in and tell you "sorry, your religious freedom doesn't extend this far." There's already a line, all this is about is deciding where to put it.

And just so we're clear here, do you think that an employer or prospective landlord should have the legal right to discriminate on the basis or sex, race, age or sexual orientation?

[Prince of the North]

Why are you being so selective in your description of what's unconstitutional here? Here, let's try something...

What's unconstitutional is infringing on the religious freedom of Christians to practice their beliefs discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. This is clearly about forcing acceptance and even celebration of gay couples heterosexuality on those who are otherwise inclined, and has nothing to do with freedom.

Sexual orientation is a protected status right along side religious affiliation in the Constitution, right?

ETA: larrytheimp beat me to it.

[TrueMetis]

So because most Christians don't practice or believe everything in the Old Testament, they have no rights to practice what they do believe? No mainstream Christian doctrine today advocates killing homosexuals, but most believe marriage is only valid between a man and a woman.

None of this is relevant anyway - like that other poster you're trying to somehow equate prejudice to murder, and making no sense in the process.

When a religious person pick and chooses some parts but not other I have no reason to believe that the part they cherry picked is anymore their "real" belief than the part they decided to exclude. This shit isn't their sincerely held religious belief, it's their excuse for their personal bigotry. So it's not that they have no right to practice their beliefs (or or not just that at least) but that I don't think it truly is their belief.

[Ramsay Gimp]

You're just drawing the line in a different place. We already have laws that prevent people from exercising their religious freedoms. Some churches have to actively apply to be able to use certain drugs in rituals. Honor killings don't fly in this country. You could start a religion where an important part of it is human sacrifice, and guess what, the big bad government is going to step in and tell you "sorry, your religious freedom doesn't extend this far." There's already a line, all this is about is deciding where to put it.

And just so we're clear here, do you think that an employer or prospective landlord should have the legal right to discriminate on the basis or sex, race, age or sexual orientation?

Yes, I draw the line at coercion. It's the only rational, rights-respecting place to draw it. Obviously you can't commit an honor killing or human sacrifice under a no-coercion regime, so if you guys could stop bringing up those ridiculous comparisons (they're like saying gay marriage leads to bestiality and pedophilia) we could move on.

To get back to the actual topic, no one has a right to use force in order to prevent homosexual behavior, and the government should grant the same legal benefits to all couples equally (though I'm not sure those benefits should exist in the first place). On the other hand, no one has a right to force private actors who disapprove of homosexuals to serve them, like them, or assist them.

Re: your second paragraph/question, the answer is yes. In my world gay clubs could bar me from entering for no reason other than my straightness. Grandpa Racist could hang "no darkies" on his shop window. And the majority of folks would get along just fine, rightly ostracizing those people. Both of these businesses could also sell drugs to consenting adults, house consenting prostitutes, and would pay no income tax, but that's another issue...aaaah, freedom :drool:

Why are you being so selective in your description of what's unconstitutional here? Here, let's try something...

Sexual orientation is a protected status right along side religious affiliation in the Constitution, right?

ETA: larrytheimp beat me to it.

The Constitution does not regulate the activities of private individuals/groups, except maybe in its prohibition on slavery. It regulates the activities of government. Forcing employers, churches, or individuals to respect "protected status" is a result of legislation, not any article of the constitution. I'm all for requiring the government to grant legal marriage status to gay couples. I'm not (and it scares me that this is an unpopular opinion) supportive of requiring the government to force regular people to assist or respect or serve gay couples.

When a religious person pick and chooses some parts but not other I have no reason to believe that the part they cherry picked is anymore their "real" belief than the part they decided to exclude. This shit isn't their sincerely held religious belief, it's their excuse for their personal bigotry. So it's not that they have no right to practice their beliefs (or or not just that at least) but that I don't think it truly is their belief.

Tell me, were you born with these impressive mind-reading powers? Are you seriously saying no one has sincere religious opposition to homosexuality? Finally, what does it matter whether you think their belief is "true" or "consistent" or whatever? It has no bearing on any of the Constitutional or moral issues involved. People have a right to be an inconsistent, bigoted, cherry-picking Christian if that's what they want to be. Thank Xenu we don't rely on your intuition to determine people's rights.

[lokisnow]

*munches on a Bacon and Shrimp sandwich*

dammit. now I'm going to hell forever for being an evil unrepentant sinner! Just as bad as the gay sex.

Oh well, I guess I can get myself blessed by taking your little ones and dashing them against the rocks--nothing like a little God sanctioned infanticide to wash away the sin stain from some God condemned tasty bacon.

Psalm 137:9 has always been a favorite verse of mine.

[ants]

Ramsay Gimp, the obvious extension of your assumption is that it is ok for a majority to treat a minority like shit, even to the extent of their death, as long as that is by neglect and/or refusal of service rather than direct violence. They can create a cycle of property and wealth ownership that will lock the children of the minority out of any chance of success. And that's all dandy according to your views.

Personally, I find this pretty morally reprehensible.

[Prince of the North]

The Constitution does not regulate the activities of private individuals/groups, except maybe in its prohibition on slavery. It regulates the activities of government. Forcing employers, churches, or individuals to respect "protected status" is a result of legislation, not any article of the constitution. I'm all for requiring the government to grant legal marriage status to gay couples. I'm not (and it scares me that this is an unpopular opinion) supportive of requiring the government to force regular people to assist or respect or serve gay couples.

Yep, I was wrong. My wishful thinking got the best of me in that I thought sexual orientation was already a Federally protected status. Though I notice the courts do seem to think it certainly should be protected.

So, if I'm reading you right you're just down with freedom to discriminate in general?

[awesome possum]

What's unconstitutional is infringing on the religious freedom of Christians to practice their beliefs. This is clearly about forcing acceptance and even celebration of gay couples on those who are otherwise inclined, and has nothing to do with freedom. No one has a right to force someone else to take part in their wedding, or serve them a meal, or provide them birth control, or pretend to approve of their sexuality.

Oh my bleeding heart just rips itself to pieces over your poor tortured soul. Imagine a world where some shadowy government entity is forcing someone to be served a meal by a gay! The horror! The horrrrrrrroooooooooorrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

On a more serious note, no one is forcing you to pretend to approve of another human being's sexuality. You can disapprove until your precious little heart is contented. What's happening in this country is that it's being made clear that if you express your freedom of speech to disapprove, others will step up and use their freedom of speech to gladly tell you to shove your bigoted opinion straight back up your ass.

[Ramsay Gimp]

On a more serious note, no one is forcing you to pretend to approve of another human being's sexuality. You can disapprove until your precious little heart is contented. What's happening in this country is that it's being made clear that if you express your freedom of speech to disapprove, others will step up and use their freedom of speech to gladly tell you to shove your bigoted opinion straight back up your ass.

That's great, but what does it have to do with the Kansas law described in the link on page 1?

Forcing someone to assist in a gay wedding, or serve someone, is not "freedom of speech."

BTW, I hope you're using the "general you." Cuz if you read my comments and still somehow think I'm homophobic, there's a reading comprehension problem

[Ramsay Gimp]

Ramsay Gimp, the obvious extension of your assumption is that it is ok for a majority to treat a minority like shit, even to the extent of their death, as long as that is by neglect and/or refusal of service rather than direct violence. They can create a cycle of property and wealth ownership that will lock the children of the minority out of any chance of success. And that's all dandy according to your views.

Personally, I find this pretty morally reprehensible.

That would be morally reprehensible. But I seriously doubt the country would resemble that^ if we got rid of these laws regarding private business. The scenario you describe is a bit hyperbolic in 2014, no? What majority do you envision acting this manner? Most American whites? Most American heteros? Most American Christians? There's no evidence to suggest most businesses would discriminate if they were allowed to today. Churches are a different matter, but churches are inherently discriminatory (the Catholic Church won't take on a female Hindu as a priest, etc)

Not even Jim Crow, where segregation was mandated by law, was as bad as your hypothetical. But I'm not arguing on utilitarian grounds anyway. First principles all the way

[Wise Fool]

Agreed. Which is why I specified businesses, churches, other private groups, and individuals. Look at what I was responding to originally. The law mentioned would compel people to act against their religious beliefs in a private setting. That isn't tolerance or legal equality - it's creepy social engineering.

What's unconstitutional is infringing on the religious freedom of Christians to practice their beliefs. This is clearly about forcing acceptance and even celebration of gay couples on those who are otherwise inclined, and has nothing to do with freedom. No one has a right to force someone else to take part in their wedding, or serve them a meal, or provide them birth control, or pretend to approve of their sexuality.

How about we pass a law mandating that secular atheists and practicing Catholics help with polygamist Islamic weddings? How about we force Mosques and Synagogues to allow same-sex kissing within their walls?

"Creepy social engineering" is a nice emotionally loaded spin, but doesn't change the reality. People have a right to life and liberty - and being discriminated against (i.e. by businesses refusing to sell you goods based on your race, or religion, or ethnicity, or sexual preference [how would they even know? I guess it's just really "suspicion of sexual preference"]) prevents that. Particularly in a situation where a minority gets discriminated against by a bigoted majority.

The notion that this has anything to do with Christian religious freedom to practice their beliefs is flat-out ridiculous. That's merely the passive-aggressive rhetoric of a bullying group to paint itself as the victim, and you would have to be either ignorant or bigoted to fall for it. Unless you know something about Christianity that I don't - perhaps an apocryphal Bible chapter prohibiting homosexuals to enter your place of business - you are simply going along with it because the discriminators are using the magic word "freedom" and you just support anyone who says that enough times. Besides having absolutely no scriptural or theological support, it is thoroughly debunked by the fact that many people are Christian and gay, or Christian and have no problems doing business with gay people. All of which is beside the point - even if these people follow some strange sect of Christianity where discrimination against homosexuals is a "religious" tenet, that "belief" cannot be practiced because it is against the law and liberty of other citizens. Just the same as if a "religious" belief included stoning someone to death. Depriving other people of their liberty or life is equally not protected under the auspices of religious freedom. Your right to swing a fist ends at my face, and discrimination is a fist, used throughout history to beat minorities to a pulp. All it takes is one happy hegemony of "religious practices" and wow, suddenly no black people allowed on the buses, and we need separate drinking fountains, and no Jews are permitted on the premises of grocery stores. Let them eat cake, eh?

So you'll forgive me if I have little sympathy for the alleged suffering of people who are in the business of serving meals to people being "compelled" to serve meals to people they don't like. Perhaps they can choose some other job where their extreme sensitivity and special needs can be more easily integrated with the rest of society. I have to deal with people I don't like every damn day. I don't get to refuse them on the basis of my personal bigotry. That's what it means to work with the public. If someone was causing trouble, that's a different story. "Being gay" does not qualify as a valid excuse for me to throw somebody out of my establishment.

There's really not too many more ways this can be explained to you, and I'm positive you will refuse to accept any argument contrary to yours.

[davos]

That's great, but what does it have to do with the Kansas law described in the link on page 1?

Forcing someone to assist in a gay wedding, or serve someone, is not "freedom of speech."

BTW, I hope you're using the "general you." Cuz if you read my comments and still somehow think I'm homophobic, there's a reading comprehension problem

Most folks who support marriage equality don't support the concept of forcing churches that object to facilitate gay wedding or hire homosexual ministries. To do so would be a violations of religious freedom. Of course that is not what the law under question would do. Its not protecting religious freedom, its providing legal sanction to malicious cruelty for no other reason than a particular type of person is not liked. White wishing it with talk of personal freedom of belief doesn't change the ugliness underneath.

A Jewish individual shouldn't expect to walk into a church and object to the indemnification of Jesus with the Messiah but he should be able to go to a grocery run by a Christian expect to be served like any other customer without issue. Similarly serving food to a homosexual does not impinge on one's religious beliefs. Its not relevant to the transaction. Nor is providing a homosexual medical care. A person might not be comfortable with it because they don't like homosexuals but they also don't get to cry "religious freedom" and treat them however they want.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On the other hand, no one has a right to force private actors who disapprove of homosexuals to serve them, like them, or assist them.

The Kansas law would extend to private actors performing public functions. If you're performing a public function, as police, fireman, doctor, or so on, you have no ability to deny service on the basis of private beliefs.

As for private businesses, if you don't want gays/blacks/jews coming into your shop, don't go into business.The state regulates many things about businesses, including the way you can treat your staff: there is no use waving around the sacred private property banner, because there are always certain limits on the use of property. Bearing in mind, of course, that the existence of your business is dependent on that evil coercive state in the first place, what with the provision of legal, commercial, and economic infrastructure.

[Spring Bass]

The vote on the UAW in the Chattanooga VW plant went against them, with 712-626 voting against having a union. That's disappointing, since while some of the anti-union websites I've looked at have been saying, "Don't worry! You can still have Works Councils without the UAW mucking things up!", the general labor law consensus that I've read is that they won't be possible without an external union.

What can you do? Unions can only exist if the workers they're potentially unionizing ultimately decide to vote for them, and they didn't. And the UAW's in a precarious position, with a high fraction of retirees versus active workers paying dues, and Right-to-Work now being active in Michigan. If the Republicans win complete control of Congress and the Presidency in 2016, you can bet they'll do whatever they can to break the back of the UAW and the remaining large private and public sector unions, destroying one of the few remaining institutional bastions for working class political power and a key source of support for the Democratic Party.

[karaddin]

Freedom of religion only extends to the point where your discrimination (or other actions) breaches other laws, it can fuck off when it's being used to try ostracise a minority group from general society in a manner that under current laws in the US is illegal. As was pointed out above you don't need to refuse all interaction with anyone you consider a sinner to follow your religious practice, this entire argument is rubbish.

As for your claim that you are clearly not a homophobe... Libertarian bigots love to proclaim that they are OK with minorities while simultaneously arguing for outcomes that would result in discrimination against them, a wonderfully convenient declaration to be an alibi against bigotry. As long as you continue to fetishise "individual freedoms" over the rights of minorities to live free from unreasonable discrimination I'll consider you a bigot.

[Seli]

....

Not even Jim Crow, where segregation was mandated by law, was as bad as your hypothetical. But I'm not arguing on utilitarian grounds anyway. First principles all the way

I don't see how you can get to your position from first principles. At least not the ones I'd use.

1 Keep it simple

2 Individual freedom (which stops when you hurt others)

3 Simple hierarchy of needs (survival over feelings^*)

This would indicate to me that the right to deny service because of feelings is trumped by the right to receive service.

^*NB! the eternal discussion on what is feelings and what is immutable part of the individual means that defining protected classes is compatible with these first principles under the keep it simple section.

[ants]

That would be morally reprehensible. But I seriously doubt the country would resemble that^ if we got rid of these laws regarding private business. The scenario you describe is a bit hyperbolic in 2014, no? What majority do you envision acting this manner? Most American whites? Most American heteros? Most American Christians? There's no evidence to suggest most businesses would discriminate if they were allowed to today. Churches are a different matter, but churches are inherently discriminatory (the Catholic Church won't take on a female Hindu as a priest, etc)

Not even Jim Crow, where segregation was mandated by law, was as bad as your hypothetical. But I'm not arguing on utilitarian grounds anyway. First principles all the way

Taking it to the extent of death is unlikely right now, the economic part is very much real in many areas. But your argument justifies those positions. To say you want that to be possible, but it's ok since its unlikely to occur is very faulty logic.

And Seli pointed out the flaws when you come from first principles.

[TrueMetis]

Tell me, were you born with these impressive mind-reading powers? Are you seriously saying no one has sincere religious opposition to homosexuality? Finally, what does it matter whether you think their belief is "true" or "consistent" or whatever? It has no bearing on any of the Constitutional or moral issues involved. People have a right to be an inconsistent, bigoted, cherry-picking Christian if that's what they want to be. Thank Xenu we don't rely on your intuition to determine people's rights.

No mind reading needed, just watching their actions. And it matters because the laws wording requires it to be a "sincerely held religious belief". And sure they can be inconsistent, bigoted, cherry-picking christian they just don't get to pretend they're sincere. Especially when for many (most?) anti-homosexual bigotry isn't considered part of christianity.

But let's head back back a few posts for a moment, I'd still like to know how serving a gay person forces one to celebrate and accept homosexuality.

[Fez]

The vote on the UAW in the Chattanooga VW plant went against them, with 712-626 voting against having a union. That's disappointing, since while some of the anti-union websites I've looked at have been saying, "Don't worry! You can still have Works Councils without the UAW mucking things up!", the general labor law consensus that I've read is that they won't be possible without an external union.

What can you do? Unions can only exist if the workers they're potentially unionizing ultimately decide to vote for them, and they didn't. And the UAW's in a precarious position, with a high fraction of retirees versus active workers paying dues, and Right-to-Work now being active in Michigan. If the Republicans win complete control of Congress and the Presidency in 2016, you can bet they'll do whatever they can to break the back of the UAW and the remaining large private and public sector unions, destroying one of the few remaining institutional bastions for working class political power and a key source of support for the Democratic Party.

There was some talk, even before the vote occurred, that it might have to be held again at a later date due to what Corker and some of the other Republicans were doing was technically tampering. I don't know how that's proven though, or what the process would be. Its a damn shame.

As to the larger point, I'm sure if Republican gain complete control at the federal level again they'll continue to hamper unions, just as they did from 2002-06, but I don't think they can fully break them. They don't need to though, the unions are slowly dying anyway, with overall membership down to 11.3% of the workforce.

[Galactus]

with overall membership down to 11.3% of the workforce.

Jesus Christ. It's around 70% here, and that's seen as a disastrous downturn.