U.S. Politics - Rand Paul is our Savior

[all swedes are racist]

The server can of course refuse the customer. I do it all the time. Gay, black, Muslim, handicapped, white, straight, etc, you come up with a label, I've kicked them out of my store. But because they were stealing, scamming, drunk, abusive to staff or customers, what have you.

Never on the basis of race, belief, sexual orientation, gender. Because aside from being morally ugly, not to mention flat out shitty business practice, it's also discriminatory, which is just Not Allowed when you decide to work with The Public. It's just one of those things, much like laws and codes regulating accurate pricing and labeling, weights & measures, building & fire code, that are designed to protect the public at large.

[Seli]

Those of us that adhere to the principle of nonaggression are averse to making someone do something they don't want to do at the point of a gun.

And those of us who recognize that refusal of service is a form of aggression share that aversion. But that does not mean we cannot support the violated party against that uncalled for violence in the court of law.

[Ramsay Gimp]

And those of us who recognize that refusal of service is a form of aggression share that aversion. But that does not mean we cannot support the violated party against that uncalled for violence in the court of law.

refusal of service = aggression now? I can see the case for saying it's a form of harm, but actual aggression?

Where does the newspeak end?

[Ormond]

Unlike TP and Tracker Neil, I am a gay person who generally still likes and admires Andrew Sullivan. But that certainly doesn't mean I have to agree with him on everything.

I think there are many moments in life where insisting on one's moral or legal rights in a minor matter is unwise and not worth the trouble. Probably even in a very rural area insisting that an anti-gay baker provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage is an example of that. It's quite probable that in such a situation one could get a friend or acquaintance to create a much better and safer cake than a coerced commercial baker would.

But there are so many other situations -- the pharmacy mentioned already being one, as well as general groceries, utilities, police protection, etc. that could potentially be denied to GLBT persons (and many others) living in rural areas by these bills that I believe they must be strongly opposed. Unfortunately, you can't write nondiscrimination laws that make distinctions between grocers and wedding cake bakers. Nondiscrimination laws have to be written to cover all public secular businesses equally. And you just can't give people a blank check to refuse services to anyone because they claim it would somehow violate a religious belief. That seems to me to be a place where libertarianism would come close to anarchy. People living everywhere in the country need to be able to rely on the providers of normal services in our economy no matter what religious group becomes predominant in their area.

[all swedes are racist]

refusal of service = aggression now? I can see the case for saying it's a form of harm, but actual aggression?

Where does the newspeak end?

You don't think the whole "We don't want your kind 'round here" isn't loaded with aggressive overtones? I mean, let's face it, I doubt people being refused service because of discriminatory practices are hearing much of "Oh, I'm terribly sorry sir. It would be a great honor to host your wedding here, but alas, according to my deeply held religious belief, I worry that being a party to this act would seriously compromise my ability to attain God pure everlasting love in the afterlife. I can, however recommend these fantastic local establishments who would be more than happy to host your wedding. And if there is anything else I can do, anything at all (barring of course any homosexual focused acts or rituals) please don't hesitate to ask! You really do seem like a great couple, best wishes, and congratulations!"

[Commodore]

Sometimes I can't tell if you actually believe this stuff or just hope if you throw in terms like "principle of nonaggression" it salvages the moral repugnance of your conservative brethren.

No need to question anyone's sincerity.

I oppose forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. If everyone adhered to a "to each his own" ethos, society would be far more civil. Permitting others to do things we might find morally repugnant (short of violence/theft) is necessary for a free society.

Never on the basis of race, belief, sexual orientation, gender.

But the customer can discriminate against the server on that basis.

refusal of service is a form of aggression

Aggression in this instance meaning an act of (or threat of) violence.

[all swedes are racist]

No need to question anyone's sincerity.

But the customer can discriminate against the server on that basis.

Of course. That's one if the priveleges afforded the buying public in relation to businesses. No one forces anyone to patronize any business. The same freedom that lets a homophobe refuse to spend money at a business run or staffed by gays is the same that allows gays to not patronize a homophobic shopkeeper. On the flip side, that sole pharmacist in small town rural America needs to cater to gay and homophobe alike, assuming both maintain a (fairly)civil and legal behavior.

Edited for clarity, spelling and correcting autocorrect.

[snake]

An article by our CBC Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald on why Hillary Clinton looks unbeatable for 2016. What say you US political pundit wannabes? Is she that much of a front runner?

[Larry of the Lawn]

No need to question anyone's sincerity.

I oppose forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. If everyone adhered to a "to each his own" ethos, society would be far more civil. Permitting others to do things we might find morally repugnant (short of violence/theft) is necessary for a free society.

Cool. Glad we agree. The world would be a much better place if everyone could just marry whomever they wanted, buy a cake where ever they wanted, walk into a restaurant without being turned away because of race, sex, gender, wealth, sexual orientation, excessive body hair, etc.

[The Marquis de Leech]

An article by our CBC Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald on why Hillary Clinton looks unbeatable for 2016. What say you US political pundit wannabes? Is she that much of a front runner?

I think she's got it if she wants it. The operable word is "if", what with health issues.

[Ramsay Gimp]

An article by our CBC Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald on why Hillary Clinton looks unbeatable for 2016. What say you US political pundit wannabes? Is she that much of a front runner?

Looks like it.

God help us

[TrackerNeil]

But the customer can discriminate against the server on that basis.

Right, right...the power balance is totally the same, there. You've stumped me.

Andrew Sullivan got the first Bush term so wrong that I feel more repentance is needed. Perhaps by 2017 I'll be ready to forgive him.

Also, as TerraPrime said, he's a little too quick to dismiss "fringe" elements of the LGBT community, probably because he himself feels alienated from them.

[ThinkerX]

Since when did the politics and LGBT threads get merged?

[TrackerNeil]

An article by our CBC Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald on why Hillary Clinton looks unbeatable for 2016. What say you US political pundit wannabes? Is she that much of a front runner?

That article is wrong in so, so many ways. I'll list a few:

1. Polls: MacDonald relies heavily on polling data to support his assertion of Clinton's dominance. She's beating Joe Biden by 61 points! She edges out all Republicans in Ohio! Please. These polls are asking Americans how they plan to vote nearly three years from now, which is for most people an eternity. Most Americans aren't thinking seriously about the next presidential race, so asking them how they'll vote is just useless...and so is relying on their answers.

2. Chris Christie: This dude is not now, never was, and never will be the Republican "big dog" in 2016. He's all that liberals could want in a Republican nominee, but unfortunately, liberals don't vote in the Republican primaries. If Bridgegate doesn't finish him, all of his apostasies will.

3. Marco Rubio: MacDonald thinks this guy will "appeal to all those millions of Latino voters that the party doesn't seem to want to court any more." Why? His party sucks on issues that matter to Latino voters, and his single major legislative association - immigration - is dead, and in fact he's already disassociated himself with it. Even in identity politics he fails; he's Cuban-American, and that doesn't mean Mexican-Americans are going to vote for him. Besides, studies show that women don't vote more heavily for Republican women than Republican men; they know that Democrats are better on their issues and vote accordingly. Why would Latinos be any different? Voters of any ethnicity aren't stupid, and even if they don't follow politics especially closely, they usually have a pretty good idea which party represents their interests.

4. Jeb Bush: I'm a little less certain on this one, but I don't think that by 2016 the stench of the Bush years will have completely dissipated. Even if it has, the party has turned pretty strongly against GWB and his policies, and it's difficult to imagine his brother doing the same.

I'm not saying Hillary can't or won't win in 2016, but if she does it won't be for the reasons MacDonald claims.

[karaddin]

Since when did the politics and LGBT threads get merged?

Since it's on topic for US Politics due to a bunch of states Republican legislatures pushing to enact sweeping "religious freedom" laws for the purposes of discriminating against gays? This has all been pretty clearly posted, if you were reading the thread properly.

[BloodRider]

Man what the fuck is wrong with Kansas?

[Gneisenau]

Wasn't Clinton the early front runner in 2008, alot more so than Obama ?

[Gneisenau]

Comparing yourself to Rocky (who lost to a black guy) I think just seals your fate. :P

[Sci-2]

Because they want a cake for their wedding? Seems obvious on its face, to me.

Yup. The sad desperation of Libertarians trying to defend this law is just ridiculous.

As if people can't use this law to deny service to minorities on religious grounds. The only reason anyone can even try to grasp at straws defending this bigotry is because homosexuals are such a small percent of the population.

eta:

@Commodore:

No need to question anyone's sincerity.

So you sincerely believe churches being forced to have gay weddings is a logical conclusion to having businesses abide by anti-discrimination law?

[Ramsay Gimp]

So you sincerely believe churches being forced to have gay weddings is a logical conclusion to having businesses abide by anti-discrimination law?

You sincerely don't see the connection?