karaddin Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The harm caused by a society that allows discrimination against minorities is seen in the elevated suicide rates amongst gay and bisexual teens, and the obscene rate amongst trans people. It doesn't have to be everyone for it to do a lot of harm, but on top of that it ruins individuals lives when it does happen. What psychological harm is inflicted on someone for not being allowed to fire someone or evict them because you find out they are gay? It's insignificant compared to the harm caused by being on the receiving end of that treatment. Freedom to discriminate freely in all areas is just privileged bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The harm caused by a society that allows discrimination against minorities is seen in the elevated suicide rates amongst gay and bisexual teens, and the obscene rate amongst trans people. It doesn't have to be everyone for it to do a lot of harm, but on top of that it ruins individuals lives when it does happen. What psychological harm is inflicted on someone for not being allowed to fire someone or evict them because you find out they are gay? It's insignificant compared to the harm caused by being on the receiving end of that treatment. Freedom to discriminate freely in all areas is just privileged bullshit. It isn't (or shouldn't be) the legal obligation of a private citizens to ensure psychological wellbeing of others. Moral obligation, maybe, but not something that should be legislated. "Privilege" :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It isn't (or shouldn't be) the legal obligation of a private citizens to ensure psychological wellbeing of others. Moral obligation, maybe, but not something that should be legislated. Why should it not be? edit: you also seem to be neatly sidestepping the fact that hospitals would be allowed to refuse services, which I find appalling, but more importantly, a public service can also be refused at the whim of someone who should have no ability to do so. We can debate whether businesses should be allowed to refuse service, but I don't think it is debatable at all that governments should be able to. (Also, arguing from principles when there are practical considerations that you blithely sidestep is why people are piling onto you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The harm caused by a society that allows discrimination against minorities is seen in the elevated suicide rates amongst gay and bisexual teens, and the obscene rate amongst trans people. It doesn't have to be everyone for it to do a lot of harm, but on top of that it ruins individuals lives when it does happen. What psychological harm is inflicted on someone for not being allowed to fire someone or evict them because you find out they are gay? It's insignificant compared to the harm caused by being on the receiving end of that treatment. Freedom to discriminate freely in all areas is just privileged bullshit. I don't disagree with the law, but rather I disagree with the reasons presented, namely the idea that the south will degenerate into a cesspool of homophobia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It isn't (or shouldn't be) the legal obligation of a private citizens to ensure psychological wellbeing of others. Moral obligation, maybe, but not something that should be legislated. "Privilege" :rolleyes: It should be the legal obligation of someone whose job is to provide a public service to provide that public service. Homosexuals pay tax just like anyone else, and as such are entitled to use the services they pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I actually think that may depend on the state. I think I recall hearing that with respect to Rubio who would be up for re-election in 2016, so he would have to decide if he's willing to risk his Senate spot to run. But Cruz was elected in 2012, so he's not up for re-election until 2018. Wasn't McCain still a senator despite losing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Losing the Presidential race, yes. But he wasn't up for re-election to the Senate that year. I could be wrong and it's only about whether or not your run for POTUS falls on the same year as your Senate re-election and you just can't do both. Not 100% sure though. But wasn't Biden running as a senator in 2008 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It should be the legal obligation of someone whose job is to provide a public service to provide that public service. Homosexuals pay tax just like anyone else, and as such are entitled to use the services they pay for. Agreed. Government services. But taxes don't pay for restaurants, hotels, etc except in maybe a very indirect manner Why should it not be? edit: you also seem to be neatly sidestepping the fact that hospitals would be allowed to refuse services, which I find appalling, but more importantly, a public service can also be refused at the whim of someone who should have no ability to do so. We can debate whether businesses should be allowed to refuse service, but I don't think it is debatable at all that governments should be able to. (Also, arguing from principles when there are practical considerations that you blithely sidestep is why people are piling onto you.) Publicly funded hospitals should admit/treat everyone equally, or else lose their public funding (I still don't think anyone should be arrested for refusing a service, even a lifesaving one, unless there was a specific prior agreement/contract with the person in question) Government should only exist to protect its citizens from force or fraud, not shape the beliefs and attitudes of society into some dreamy ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 larrytheimp, I think there's just a disconnect between you saying that you don't think people should discriminate, but that they should legally be allowed to. Why should that imply a disconnect? In order for a disconnect to be implied, one would have to assume that things which we would discourage people from doing must also be made illegal. Have you made up your mind, then, that Klan members, for example, are by definition guilty of a crime and should be fined or go to jail? Just trying to understand the limits of your ideal in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 larrytheimp, Why should that imply a disconnect? In order for a disconnect to be implied, one would have to assume that things which we would discourage people from doing must also be made illegal. Have you made up your mind, then, that Klan members, for example, are by definition guilty of a crime and should be fined or go to jail? Just trying to understand the limits of your ideal in this regard. I doubt he believes this, but his quote seems to imply that everything that he disapproves of should be forbidden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Agreed. Government services. But taxes don't pay for restaurants, hotels, etc except in maybe a very indirect manner Taxes pay for police, don't they? This law you're defending would allow individual police officers to reject service. As for restaurants and hotels, I think you'll find that they (like any other business) are subject to labour laws and health and safety regulations. Businesses are not like someone's home: there are certain standards of behaviour required. If you don't want to meet these standards, don't go into business. No-one's forcing you to run a restaurant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Taxes pay for police, don't they? This law you're defending would allow individual police officers to reject service. As for restaurants and hotels, I think you'll find that they (like any other business) are subject to labour laws and health and safety regulations. Businesses are not like someone's home: there are certain standards of behaviour required. If you don't want to meet these standards, don't go into business. No-one's forcing you to run a restaurant. -OK, then I agree the specific law is bad since it applies to public employees. I should have looked into it more deeply. If it only oncerned private individuals and businesses however I would probably support it (though, again, I havent read much about it and have been arguing in a more general sense) -Your second paragraph is just a statement of the law regarding business as it currently stands, not a defense of it or argument for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I doubt he believes this, but his quote seems to imply that everything that he disapproves of should be forbidden I just think that if you think discrimination is wrong, you shouldn't support or defend legislation that actively seeks to make it easier to marginalize people, just because you have some arm-chair concept of freedom that you put a higher priority on than people being able to live their lives without being hassled because of their sexual orientation or skin color. The fact that this bill even came up is enough to demonstrate that there are those out there that would seek to alienate and hurt people out of homophobia, and to defend their actions on first amendment grounds ignores the damage caused by their actions. It's no different than the cliched 'yelling fire in a crowded theater.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I just think that if you think discrimination is wrong, you shouldn't support or defend legislation that actively seeks to make it easier to marginalize people, just because you have some arm-chair concept of freedom that you put a higher priority on than people being able to live their lives without being hassled because of their sexual orientation or skin color. The fact that this bill even came up is enough to demonstrate that there are those out there that would seek to alienate and hurt people out of homophobia, and to defend their actions on first amendment grounds ignores the damage caused by their actions. It's no different than the cliched 'yelling fire in a crowded theater.' So do you even support the right (not the decision) to say homophobic or racist things? And if not, do you admit that you are an authoritarian? Do you know where the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre" phrase comes from? Looking into it may change your mind about its supposed wisdom (Off-topic kinda: there's a great video of a debate on free speech with Christopher Hitchens, where his opponent uses that line. Before he even finishes the sentence, Hitchens yells "fire!" at the audience, resulting in many lolz) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 -Your second paragraph is just a statement of the law regarding business as it currently stands, not a defense of it or argument for it The point is that private property has never been sacrosanct in the way that libertarians envisage it. Society has always regulated its usage in the common interest, and this is especially true of businesses (corporations, after all, are creations of the state, and all businesses utilise state-provided legal and economic infrastructure). If the common interest is that black jewish lesbians should be able to buy groceries like anyone else, the state is quite entitled to protect their right to buy groceries. If the business owner objects, don't go into business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The point is that private property has never been sacrosanct in the way that libertarians envisage it. Society has always regulated its usage in the common interest, and this is especially true of businesses (corporations, after all, are creations of the state, and all businesses utilise state-provided legal and economic infrastructure). If the common interest is that black jewish lesbians should be able to buy groceries like anyone else, the state is quite entitled to protect their right to buy groceries. If the business owner objects, don't go into business. Oh common, you mention business privilege examples but don't mention IP. I am dissapointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Allowing them to say homophobic things is not the same as allowing them to act upon them. Stop trying to equate the two. Also people are.not businesses. People will still have the "freedom" to tout their ignorance and naietite as moral superiority. But we are talking about businesses. Business should be forced to follow standards, lest we live in the libertarian paradise of West Virginia by the river.And berts always wonder why they are perceived as proponents of corporatism and mussolini styled fascims. Its cause they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Oh common, you mention business privilege examples but don't mention IP. I am dissapointed. There's actually a lot of libertarian theorists who oppose intellectual property laws, at least as they stand currently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The fact that this bill even came up is enough to demonstrate that there are those out there that would seek to alienate and hurt people out of homophobia, and to defend their actions on first amendment grounds ignores the damage caused by their actions. One thing that's characterized a lot of right-wing political trends these past few years has been a detestable kind of passive-aggressive spin in which right-wingers are claimed to be the actual victims, and the Democrats the actual oppressors. This is supported by revisionist history which spins the Nazis as liberal, and frequent and constant comparisons or accusations of Nazism (and Communism, and all other things that Hate America And Freedom And God). To those who believe this kind of rhetoric, they are whipped into a kind of 24/7 fury. The internets are littered with their venomous rage. For if your enemies are not just Americans who disagree with your politics, but literal Nazis, what actions are you justified in taking to oppose them? Any actions. Given all that, a mini Nuremberg Laws like proposal in a state or two seems like mild restraint. Almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Thank you. The hateful dystopia people are envisioning just wouldn't occur - the vast majority of the country is past that stuff That's the same reasoning as, "I'm perfectly dry in this rainstorm; why am I bothering to hold this umbrella?" So do let's repeal all anti-discrimination laws and then we'll see just how "past this stuff" the US is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.