US Politics: Papers of Nefarious Clinton Regime Released!

[Ramsay Gimp]

I actually do think that we'll make more progress if we don't try to morally label [too much].

Can you give examples where businesses can choose to discriminate based on height or favorite sports team?

I don't even see the relevance.

Lethal force is being employed? I suspect not.

In any case, I didn't say it wasn't coercion. I asked why coercion via market forces is okay.

-Specific examples? Isn't this common knowledge? As a temporary staffing specialist at my dad's company we turned away people for their appearance all the time, including things they couldn't do much about like height, weight. We wouldn't send a short skinny guy to do the strenuous heavy lifting for hours on end for example. A quick Google: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/11/19/8-ways-employers-can-discriminate-against-workers-legally/

5. Appearance

Very few states or municipalities have prohibitions against appearance discrimination, and there are no federal laws against it. Sometimes, women are subjected to appearance standardswhen men are not (or vice versa) and that would probably be illegal discrimination. But hating someone because they're beautiful? Probably legal.

So it only becomes illegal when you throw gender in the mix. Because the powers-that-be have decided gender is sacred while height, attractiveness, hair and eye color, etc. are not

-You claimed that I said (or "libertarians say") coercion was fine in the market. Since you provided no examples, I assumed you were referring to this case with the photographer or maybe to refusal of service in general

[Sci-2]

So it only becomes illegal when you throw gender in the mix. Because the powers-that-be have decided gender is sacred while height, attractiveness, hair and eye color, etc. are not

You're assuming the "State" is some kind of single minded force. It seems more likely to me that gender is something that managed to get passed through as being worthy of legal protection while other protections workers' rights advocates would like to have are not set into law yet.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Ramsay Gimp,

You support the existence of a state to protect property rights, yes?

[ants]

Sure, take the most ridiculous example from the opposing side and extrapolate that to represent everyone who disagrees with you

Look, it's really simple. The state should not forbid any consenting adults from marrying. The state also shouldn't compel anyone to photograph a wedding (absent a contractual agreement or something). That's the only reasonable, common-sense view on the matter

It's pretty clearly not the only reasonable, common-sense view on the matter. You have already agreed you are fine with racism and bigotry being allowed in the name of freedom, and articles have been presented showing that the death rate, health and economic welfare for minorities suffered during racist periods. So you are in fact arguing that the majority have the right to pursue policies against a minority that leads to their shortened lives, economic impoverishment and mental scars. But its fine, in the name of freedom. As long as no lynchings or internment camps are occurring.

You may believe the above is a common sense outcome. Many of the rest of us do not.

[Wise Fool]

In the specific case of Bloodrider, it's true. He is explicitly authoritarian, and his twisting of language is very "Newspeakian". I wasn't throwing those labels at all of you

Oh, is he explicitly a Bolshevik or a Fascist?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Oh, is he explicitly a Bolshevik or a Fascist?

You tell me, I can't decide...

[Seli]

I'm having a hard time telling if you are a Bolshevik or a Fascist. When will you guys quit playing with definitions? Freedom is not slavery, war is not peace. Owning a business does not make this photographer an "unperson" who must do whatever the state wants.

.....

The core of these issues is that (traditionally) the business is a non-person, and as such cannot have the feelings/opinions that allow people to act discriminatory. The photographer doesn't have to do whatever the state wants, but the photography business has to follow the state's rules and regulations and as such ought to act as a buffer between personal opinion and acts.

The same isolation, in my opinion, holds between church/religious person owned businesses and that church/person. Their beliefs cannot influence what laws the business has to adhere to, because the business is not a person. Of course Citizens United threw a spanner into that traditional model in the USA.

[Wise Fool]

You tell me, I can't decide...

Alright. The answer is no. He is not, explicitly, a fascist or a bolshevik, and you calling him that in the same post you decry demonization of people you disagree with via the assigning of cliched labels is hilariously hypocritical. If your principled stands mean so little even to you, why should they matter to anyone else?

[BloodRider]

How do you know she doesn't love gays? I also saw no judgement in her emails to them. Not that any of that matters - her religion doesn't have to fit with your ideal of "Jesus the hippy Democrat" to be legitimate.

How morally and intellectually bankrupt is your philosophy that you can not even formulate an argument, instead relying on name calling.

How disingenuous are your words when you accuse me of playing with definitions and the crux of you whole argument is that businesses deserve the same considerations that actual human beings do.

A business is a legal entity formed between the state and individuals. The state is there to represent the people's interest. Consideration is given by both sides. There is no gun holding here. If a business agent does not like the terms they don't have to sign. If they can't live up to the terms of the contract they should be dissolved as a business entity. The state is our representative in this contract. You are a sucker if you want to unilaterally give up the benefits of that contract for some magical freedom beeenz.

[awesome possum]

I'm having a hard time telling if you are a Bolshevik or a Fascist. When will you guys quit playing with definitions?

The lack of awareness surrounding these two sentences is legitimately amusing.

[Usotsuki]

President Barack Obama gets early copies of HBO's Game of Thrones before the general public.

If he also gets an advance edition of The Winds of Winter I want him impeached.

*nods firmly*

[Ramsay Gimp]

Ramsay Gimp,

You support the existence of a state to protect property rights, yes?

Barring a practical alternative, yes. Anarcho-capitalism is appealing ideologically but I can't see how it would practically function in a way that actually respects the rights it purports to protect without some radical change in human nature

Your myopic focus on the specific issue of the wedding photography is missing the much larger issue. You've already stipulated that you feel that anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone at any time because, as you say, people have alternatives. In your view, if this particular studio wouldn't photograph this couple's wedding, then they simply could have gone to a studio that would.

But your refusal to consider the plight of people who have no alternatives for much more important issues proves that you're being just as disingenuous in your arguments as you're accusing the other posters here of being. You're trying to make this solely about a wedding photo, while ignoring the real world repercussions of this policy being enacted in areas where they may be no other alternatives.

What if it's a pharmacy that refuses to provide service? Or a grocery store? What if it's the only pharmacy or grocery store in town? We already have real world examples during the Jim Crow era of black families on a cross-country drive having to sleep in their cars because no hotels would provide them service. Are you seriously suggesting that you're okay with an outcome like that?

Focusing on the actual case being debated in court, and that sparked the controversial (and flawed, I agree) laws, isn't "myopic." I'm willing to get into those hypotheticals if you're willing to address the actual incident in question.

Should a wedding photographer be liable for damages or punishment by the state if she refuses to photograph a gay wedding? Is forcing a conservative Christian woman to document a lesbian marriage ceremony a proper role of government? Pretend it is happening in a vacuum. Answering this is useful to see where everyone is coming from.

If your position is that while the result is regrettable or disturbing in this case, but a necessary evil to ensure the broader goal of legal/civic/social equality, that's one thing. A judge who ruled in the couple's favor took that position. I've seen some commentators say that while they agree with the law, the couple should have let it go in this case. But other than Lord Mord and a few others, I have yet to see anyone arguing with me on this forum acknowledge that there is anything wrong with this, any legitimate concerns on the other side, or that the photographer may have a point even if she is wrong.

How morally and intellectually bankrupt is your philosophy that you can not even formulate an argument, instead relying on name calling.

How disingenuous are your words when you accuse me of playing with definitions and the crux of you whole argument is that businesses deserve the same considerations that actual human beings do.

A business is a legal entity formed between the state and individuals. The state is there to represent the people's interest. Consideration is given by both sides. There is no gun holding here. If a business agent does not like the terms they don't have to sign. If they can't live up to the terms of the contract they should be dissolved as a business entity. The state is our representative in this contract. You are a sucker if you want to unilaterally give up the benefits of that contract for some magical freedom beeenz.

OK, I apologize for calling you a fascist/bolshevik. I went too far, you got me there. But I do find your blase attitude, which seemingly sees no limits on state power over businesses, to be dangerous and disturbing. As is your justification, which is that businesses are not "people." It's a trend of thought that's become quite popular among the more authoritarian progressives (and no, I won't retract calling you an authoritarian) and it's logical end is that citizens have none of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as long as they are in a professional setting. "Serve the people's interests" = is the photographer not "people", with an interest in following her religious principles? And how is "consideration given to both sides" if she is just told "tough, deal with it"?

I didn't call DanteGabriel any names, btw. I just decried his lack of empathy for those with different values/beliefs/opinions and tried to point out that his view of what Jesus would want isn't really relevant to the discussion of religious freedom

[TrueMetis]

I didn't call DanteGabriel any names, btw. I just decried his lack of empathy for those with different values/beliefs/opinions and tried to point out that his view of what Jesus would want isn't really relevant to the discussion of religious freedom

It is when your argument for why your discriminating is "because Jesus."

[Ramsay Gimp]

It is when your argument for why your discriminating is "because Jesus."

I'll quote Castel from the previous thread (who very much disagrees with me on the issue, btw)

The problem with this is: in practice religion is whatever people think it is. So she is following her religion. Getting bogged down in this doesn't change her belief in doing X bad thing we don't want being done

In other words, whether or not Jesus would actually condone her actions is irrelevant to whether she is practicing her religion

[ThinkerX]

Hmmm...

Years ago, I was a driver for a van service. Most of our riders were 'institutional' - people being shuttled around various old folks homes or clinics or halfway houses, that sort of thing. But there were others.

We had several regular riders who went with us because the cab companies absolutely refused to go to those addresses or deal with those people. If those people did call for a cab, the ride got shunted over to us. These people, by and large were stereotypical 'drunken natives' - visibly intoxicated much of the time, and acting the part. The area about their dwellings looked like a cross between a garbage dump and an open sewer. Just the stench was overwhelming.

So...by refusing those riders, were the cab companies engaging in discrimination? Could they have been prosecuted for refusing service to these people?

[The Marquis de Leech]

It's pretty clearly not the only reasonable, common-sense view on the matter. You have already agreed you are fine with racism and bigotry being allowed in the name of freedom, and articles have been presented showing that the death rate, health and economic welfare for minorities suffered during racist periods. So you are in fact arguing that the majority have the right to pursue policies against a minority that leads to their shortened lives, economic impoverishment and mental scars. But its fine, in the name of freedom. As long as no lynchings or internment camps are occurring.

You may believe the above is a common sense outcome. Many of the rest of us do not.

I think this entire issue can be boiled down to RG thinking that only state coercion is bad. If someone other than the state is doing the coercing, there's no problem.

I suspect if there had been a state-owned photography company turning away same-sex customers on the basis of religion, RG would be appalled.

[TrueMetis]

I'll quote Castel from the previous thread (who very much disagrees with me on the issue, btw)

In other words, whether or not Jesus would actually condone her actions is irrelevant to whether she is practicing her religion

Ignoring for a moment that I'm pretty sure we're talking about the photographer that said something like "I can't do this for you because of my relationship with Jesus" meaning what Jesus would condemn or condone is entirely relevant, we cannot just say "religion is whatever people think it is" from a legal POV. If you make religion "whatever people think it is" then it's impossible to differentiate between people discriminating for "sincere" beliefs, and people making shit up so they can be bigots. And you're just okayed every bullshit cult ever, after all who are you to tell those people who think that one guys is god and has him sleep with there 14 year old daughters that their belief isn't "sincere" after all "religion is whatever people think it is."

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Barring a practical alternative, yes. Anarcho-capitalism is appealing ideologically but I can't see how it would practically function in a way that actually respects the rights it purports to protect without some radical change in human nature

Ok, so, it being the case that you recognize some state coercion is necessary to protect property rights, and following from this that the state will have even to coerce some property from citizens in order to do this so that property rights can practically exist, is it not also clear that in order for freedom to practically exist it will be necessary that, just as some amount of property is coerced from citizens by the state, so must some amount of freedom (the freedom of businesses to engage in discrimination, in this case) be coerced from citizens?

[TrackerNeil]

I think this entire issue can be boiled down to RG thinking that only state coercion is bad. If someone other than the state is doing the coercing, there's no problem.

Which pretty much sums up libertarian thought, now that I think about it. Coercion is something practiced only by government; accusations of private coercion are met with hair-splitting, hyperlegal distinctions that amount to no real distinction. Libertarian thought has very few points of contact with the real world, which is why it's so internally consistent. Once you assume human beings are frictionless spheroids of uniform density**, why, any philosophy works!

**Thanks to Charlie Stross

[Fez]

Bad loss for Democrats in the special election in Florida #13 tonight, Jolly beat Sink by 3 points. Its Bill Young's old seat, and he won his last election by 15 points, so you'd think that wouldn't be that bad. But Young only kept winning by so much because he was an institution there, its a swing district where Obama beat Romney by 1 point in 2012. Jolly was bad, underfunded candidate, and he still won.

It doesn't necessarily say anything about what'll happen in November (after all Democrats won all 3 special elections for Congress leading up to the 2010 bloodbath), but its not a good sign. Particularly since these are exactly the sorts of seats that Democrats very badly need to win to have any chance at taking the House; there's not a lot of them, and now Jolly will be an incumbent come November.