Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 174
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think in this type of case someone should be able to refuse service.
    Great. I expect most objections are and will continue to be in the servicing of homosexual marriages and in abortion insurance issues, where a business owner is forced to support something they strongly disagree with. I think there will be very few business owners who would ask a customer "Are you a homosexual?" and refuse to sell them a car or computer or not clean their pool. The rabid Left is just trying to stoke unwarranted fear for political benefit.

    Squatch asked what the compelling governmental interest would be in passing legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The rest of your comments and the lack of any body of evidence showing pervasive discrimination demonstrates that no new protections are needed.

    ---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Gand View Post
    In that instance possibly some emotional harm which is difficult to quantify, but that is a relatively minor example. If you allow such discrimination to be taken further so as to deny people more essential services then it is likely to produce real harm.
    Given that a similar federal law has been in place for decades, and dozens of states have enacted similar laws with no significant evidence that real harm has been produced, I don't see how the Harm Principle can apply.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Great. I expect most objections are and will continue to be in the servicing of homosexual marriages and in abortion insurance issues, where a business owner is forced to support something they strongly disagree with. I think there will be very few business owners who would ask a customer "Are you a homosexual?" and refuse to sell them a car or computer or not clean their pool. The rabid Left is just trying to stoke unwarranted fear for political benefit.
    We may well still have different standards here, but at least we share some ground. for instance, If I wanted flowers for my gay wedding (one of the cases) or I wanted a cake saying happy anniversary Steve and Gary, then I think there is no condoning or need for discrimination based on personal beliefs here. Its not something you are intimately involved in.

    Squatch asked what the compelling governmental interest would be in passing legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The rest of your comments and the lack of any body of evidence showing pervasive discrimination demonstrates that no new protections are needed.
    Keep in mind, I see and argue three levels to this issue
    1. Should or should there not be laws that limit on what basis a business owner can discriminate on
    2. If so in what cases are they justified
    3. Regardless of the law, are you a jerk for discriminating in this way?

    In case 1. I think yes, there are at least some instances in which we should have such laws.
    in case 2. I'm not sure this is one where we should.
    In case 3. I think yes, they are often jerks (and this is where my well supported opinions you like to dismiss come into play)

    ---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Given that a similar federal law has been in place for decades, and dozens of states have enacted similar laws with no significant evidence that real harm has been produced, I don't see how the Harm Principle can apply.
    There are significant differences in this law
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ferent/388997/
    "The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

    The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language."
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am arguing ought.

    We ought to make a distinction between single ownership companies, and collective ownership companies when it comes to any discrimination rules.
    We should view discrimination laws regarding single ownership as infringement on those owners personal rights.
    I see no reason to agree with that.

    Legally an individual and a business are two different entities and there are numerous legal differences between the two, the most relevant one to this debate being that an individual has the option of not associating with anyone he doesn't want to and a business does not have that option. There likewise are many, many other legal differences between the two.

    If you want to argue that we should change the rules and remove that one particular distinction, then make the argument. But until you do make such an argument, I will not accept any assertion that a business has the right to refuse to associate.

    So it is not an accepted premise that businesses have a right to refuse association nor is it an accepted premise that denying a business that right infringes on an individuals right to refuse association.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think some white people feel that it is "difficult" to live in some of the current predominately black getto's.

    I don't see how we should weigh "difficulty" of living for some on the scale of personal rights.
    It is no doubt more difficult for a Republican president to deal with the liberal press then a liberal president. (for sake of argument at least).
    How should we deal with the rights of the pres then? Should we propose some fairness doctrines and restrict their speach?
    I'm talking about the right to live where one chooses. If the community denies one the ability to live in a certain area then they are denying one the right to live there. The other issues are, well, other issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why not? you don't believe in a free country for those people? you would compel association to fit your likes and dislikes?
    Allowing one to move into an area does not force associations. You can ignore your neighbors.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What give you the right and authority to compel me to give my money, or accept money from anyone?
    I make no argument that, as an individual, you should be compelled to give or accept money (aside from paying taxes).

    What your business must do is a different issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    no it hasn't, even if we agree that such an example would exist (which I don't) one would still have a "right" to live there.
    Just like you have a right to be at a public place, but you can't compel people to talk to you.
    At some point, you will have to accept the consequences of your person choices.
    And the right to be able to live in an area is directly tied to one having the ability to attain what they need to survive while in the area. So denying a resident the ability to locally purchase the necessities violates his right to live there. If you can't actually survive in an area then you can't live there.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, not in today society. not in a free market. There would be no place in america where you would be starved out by bigotry. It is a false dilemma
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT.

    Tell me specifically what would prevent a group of like-minded individuals gathering in a region and having an agreement amongst merchants to only cater to white people in an attempt to keep blacks out of the area or what would make their attempt ineffective.

    And again, be specific. Don't just say something vague like "the free market".




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sorry that doesn't make any sense.
    How can you refuse service based on race and not be a bigot? You seem to be trying to divorce ideas that are directly tied to actions.
    They are typically tied but not inherently tied. For instance, what if a rich person paid a non-bigot ten thousand dollars for each minority that the shop owner refused to cater to? The shop owner would then be refusing service but not out of his personal bigotry.

    And more to the point, the non-bigoted shopkeeper is just as much in violation of anti-discrimination laws as a shopkeeper who refuses service because he is a bigot.

    The point being that the owners are being punished for their actions, not their beliefs. A non-bigot who refuses service is in violation while a bigot who does not refuse service is not in violation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    After the time of the civil war, when bigotry ran rampant, minorities were still able to purchase food.

    I did not say that slaves had any rights. I simply pointed out that minorities were always able to purchase things even in very harsh conditions.

    But let me back away from the slave example, because that isn't representative of our society. The worst case you could hope to show is shortly after the civil war as a comparison.
    Which I contend minorities were able to purchase necessities and none were starved out by society.
    In every community? I don't think it's too far-fetched to forward that shortly after the civil war there were many communities that blacks were not even allowed to enter, much less make purchases while there. I think it's safe to say that back then blacks did not have the right to live wherever they wanted.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, lets define an encounter and talk about the rights each person involved has.

    You and I are passing on the street, I am Um from Umbrage, and you are a U from Urr.

    Must I speak to you? What rights do I posses that allows me not to speak to you?
    - My answer would be No I don't' have to speak to you, and the right is the right to speech and accusation.

    Now suppose I am selling pet rocks. Do I now have to speak to you?
    - My answer is no, and based on the same rights as above, as nothing has been added that would change my rights.
    In scenario 1 you are an individual so the choice to speak is yours

    In scenario 2 you are a business so you cannot discriminate while engaging in commerce and must speak to me. As the individual in the store you can refuse to speak to me and you, as an individual, would not be punished for that. But your business might be punished.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    .. Now what about you.. do you have any authority to compel me to speak to you in either instance?
    Where does that authority come from? Certainly you have the right to speak to me, but I need not even acknowledge your existence.
    In the first instance, you are an individual and you have every right to ignore me.

    In the second instance, you are a business and must abide by various rules of commerce including non-discrimination in your dealings with the public.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    - refusal to sell necessities -

    This is a highly undefined criteria.
    For example, I live within 2 min of a local grocery, and 3 min from the local Wal-mart (one with a grocery).
    Suppose the local Grocer refused to sell to me (for whatever reason). What value is there now on my difficulty to live because I have to drive one more minute?

    As it is, the local grocer doesn't sell EVERYTHING I need, so my life is already a little bit harder. My problem with this kind of attempt at a calculation, assumes that I have some right to a less difficult life.

    So, lets assume we agreed that the 1min difference made my life 50% more difficult. Shouldn't we then compel the local grocer not only to sell to me, but also sell ALL things?
    I mean, where does it stop and why? And how can we even asses a difficulty value to start to speak to what is and isn't tolerable, or what should and shouldn't be tolerable.
    Since I find any percentage other than zero to be intolerable, it doesn't matter exactly what the number is or how we get there.

    And it's not difficulty in general but difficulty when compared to those who aren't discriminated against.

    So again, if the merchants make it impossible for a person to survive there (100%), then that person essentially has no right to live there and assuming you hold that a person does have the right to live where they want, that situation is intolerable. So if you are fine with a lower number, then tell me how we arrive at a tolerable lower number.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, because difficulty in living in a place is not relevant to a right to live there.

    For example, you could choose to live in the Desert 1k miles away from anyone. It would be very difficult and no one would sell to you.
    you still have every right to live there if you choose. However all the surrounding factors are outside of your control and you have no right to any of them.
    Of course. But people's actions are under our control to extent. For example, we can make it illegal for people to attack or threaten someone to force them to move out. We can make it illegal for people to kidnap someone's family member to convince them to leave. And we can make it illegal for the town to conspire to refuse to allow the person to aquire the necessities of life so they are not capable of physically surviving in the community.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again, same goes for the property of others. you can not compel anyone to sell you their property, give you their time, or force them to associate with you. It is outside of your rights. regardless of how difficult your life is made by the choices of others.
    I'm referring to businesses, not individuals.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    your life being difficult is not a sufficient reason to infringe on the right of others.
    I reject the premise that I'm suggesting anything that would infringe on anyone's individual rights. I ask that you cease forwarding that premise until you support that it's valid.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The free market doesn't exist in that place?
    Of course it does. But a free market does not guarantee that a black shopkeeper will set up shop in the area.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, because that area is made of individuals expressing their personal rights, and should no more be forced to associate then a community of monks should be forced to speak to you.
    But I'm referring to businesses, not individuals.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We have made several forms of it illegal, so i don't see it as being recognized as a right.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that we've made bigotry (as in holding bigoted beliefs) illegal.


    And you've completely ignored an argument of mine (that I think is pretty convincing) so I will repeat it here.

    Another way to approach is the value of money. In a town where one cannot buy anything, their money is useless - for that person a hundred dollar bill will have the same monetary value as pocket lint. So in effect, that person is not allowed to earn money (as whatever they earn will have no monetary value in the town). And of course that hypothetical is 100%. And conversely if 50% of the businesses will sell to that person, then the money has some value to them but not as much value as someone who is not subject to discrimination. In other words, assuming the discrimination is along racial lines, a white person's work is more financially productive than a black person's work even if they get paid the exact same amount per hour.

    So again, where is the tolerable percentage? I assume you agree that 100% is not tolerable. I hold that no percentage is tolerable as a white person's money and a black person's money should have the exact same value so a even a 1% disadvantage should not be allowed.
    Last edited by mican333; March 30th, 2015 at 02:04 PM.

  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If I wanted... a cake saying happy anniversary Steve and Gary, then I think there is no condoning or need for discrimination based on personal beliefs here. Its not something you are intimately involved in.
    There we don't agree and, frankly, you don't know how intimately involved a business owner would be in that transaction. I can attest to the fact that small business owners are often very intimately involved with every detail of their business. And regardless whether they are or not, it is their private owned business which is and should be treated differently than a large publicly traded corporation. Read the Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision for the Supreme Court's ruling on such issues.

    As to the link, I don't see enough of a difference to make a difference.

    Another point - our legal system respects and acknowledges the right or Freedom to Contract, which must necessarily include the freedom to NOT contract. It goes against our legal system's understanding of those freedoms to force someone into a transaction that they choose not to enter.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  5. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  6. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I see no reason to agree with that.

    Legally an individual and a business are two different entities and there are numerous legal differences between the two, the most relevant one to this debate being that an individual has the option of not associating with anyone he doesn't want to and a business does not have that option. There likewise are many, many other legal differences between the two.

    If you want to argue that we should change the rules and remove that one particular distinction, then make the argument. But until you do make such an argument, I will not accept any assertion that a business has the right to refuse to associate.

    So it is not an accepted premise that businesses have a right to refuse association nor is it an accepted premise that denying a business that right infringes on an individuals right to refuse association.
    I am in fact currently making that argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm talking about the right to live where one chooses. If the community denies one the ability to live in a certain area then they are denying one the right to live there. The other issues are, well, other issues.
    Your stating your opinion, not making an argument to support that point. .. which I have challenged and offered actual reasons against.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So you are backtracking on your agreement on the right to live where one wants? And allowing one to move into an area does not force associations. You can ignore your neighbors.
    I am not backtracking, you are reading that into the position.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I make no argument that, as an individual, you should be compelled to give or accept money (aside from taxes).

    BTW, I reject the premise that an individual and a business are one and the same so if you refer to yourself I will consider that as a referral to you as an individual.
    Not all "businesses" file special taxes or have a separate tax ID.
    So, a business is no different than the person who owns it unless specifically stated.

    Even so, I forward the same arguments that we OUGHT not make the distinction even when they file special taxes.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And the right to be able to live in an area is directly tied to one having the ability to attain what they need to survive while in the area. So denying a resident the ability to locally purchase the necessities violates his right to live there. If you can't actually survive in an area then you can't live there.
    No, the right to live somewhere is not directly tied to having the ability to attain what is needed to survive.
    i have every right fly myself to Antarctica and plop myself down on an ICE Cap. If i want to go trudging into the desert all on my lonesome... I can do it.
    My right is not effected by my ability to survive and one is not related to the other.

    Please support how it is so, and why (challenge) So that you don't continue to simply repeate this.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT.

    Tell me specifically what would prevent a group of like-minded individuals gathering in a region and having an agreement amongst merchants to only cater to white people in an attempt to keep blacks out of the area or what would make their attempt ineffective.
    First of all, I did support that point. I did so by pointing to the past at far more bigoted times where people didn't get starved out by what you are talking about.

    It is far more likely that a bigoted area will extort money, then completly refuse service in a free market.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    They are typically tied but not inherently tied. For instance, what if a rich person paid a non-bigot ten thousand dollars for each minority that the shop owner refused to cater to? The shop owner would then be refusing service but not out of his personal bigotry.
    I don't see how.

    That is like saying if I kill someone becuase you pay me too, that doesn't actually make me a murderer, or a psycopath.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You are sneaking in the premise that you as an individual and you as a business are the same thing and therefore the same answer applies to both situations.

    But since you are different in each scenario (the first time you are an individual and the second time you are a business) the answer is not the same for both situations.
    I'm not sneaking in the premise, I'm declaring and supporting the lack of destinction, and that we OUGHT not make a distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    In the first instance, you are an individual and you have every right to ignore me.

    In the second instance, you are a business and must abide by various rules of commerce including non-discrimination in your dealings with the public.
    No reasoning offered, so rejected opinion.

    also, is ought fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    Since I find any percentage other than zero to be intolerable, it doesn't matter exactly what the number is or how we get there.

    And it's not difficulty in general but difficulty when compared to those who aren't discriminated against.

    So again, if the merchants make it impossible for a person to survive there (100%), then that person essentially has no right to live there and assuming you hold that a person does have the right to live where they want, that situation is intolerable. So if you are fine with a lower number, then tell me how we arrive at a tolerable lower number.
    You have to actually make the argument, I do not share your opinion or assumptions on this issue. You must offer a number/value and justify it if you wish to discuss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Of course. But people's actions are under our control to extent. For example, we can make it illegal for people to attack or threaten someone to force them to move out. We can make it illegal for people to kidnap someone's family member to convince them to leave. And we can make it illegal for the town to conspire to refuse to allow the person to aquire the necessities of life so they are capable of physically surviving in the community.
    Yes we can vote in tyranny of the majority(or minority) if we like.
    We ought not do that just as I am arguing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm referring to businesses, not individuals.
    No releivant destinction exists when the buisness is individually owned, thus we ought not treat them as destinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I reject the premise that I'm suggesting anything that would infringe on anyone's individual rights. I ask that you cease forwarding that premise until you support that it's valid.
    I have supported that assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I reject the premise that I'm suggesting anything that would infringe on anyone's individual rights. I ask that you cease forwarding that premise until you support that it's valid.
    Welcome to the 21st century.. Let me introduce you to the internet and it's announimouse ordering delivered to you door services.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that we've made bigotry (as in holding bigoted beliefs) illegal.
    I have, please re-read my last post.



    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you've completely ignored an argument of mine so I will repeat it here.
    These responses are getting very long. don't act like I am ignoring some major point when it didn't make up very much of your response or tie in directly to most of it.
    That said, I'll respond to it here.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Another way to approach is the value of money. In a town where one cannot buy anything their money is useless - for that person a hundred dollar bill will have the same monetary value as pocket lint. So in effect, that person is not allowed to earn money (as whatever they earn will have no monetary value in the town). And of course that hypothetical is 100%. And conversely if 50% of the businesses will sell to that person, then the money has some value to them but not as much value as someone who is not subject to discrimination. In other words, assuming the discrimination is along racial lines, a white person's work is more financially productive than a black person's work even if they get paid the exact same amount per hour.

    So again, where is the tolerable percentage? I assume you agree that 100% is not tolerable. I hold that no percentage is tolerable as a white person's money and a black person's money should have the exact same value so a even a 1% disadvantage should not be allowed.
    Well, that isn't how money works, and the entire argument ignores the free market response already offered to your other examples.
    A group of people denying you services does not make your money worth less or "worthless", and they are not by extension denying you the right to earn money.

    it's a non-sequentialar.

    Also, the kind of "disadvantage" already exists in the market, and people seem to function just fine.
    That is, in the case where a person carries a Master card, but some businesses don't accept it. Or where personal checks are not accepted.

    You are assuming some value or % of disadvantage that is not being enumerated or justified. your speaking to a hypothetical that is not well enough defined for you to base an argument on it.
    To serve man.

  7. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your stating your opinion, not making an argument to support that point. .. which I have challenged and offered actual reasons against.
    I thought it was an accepted premise that people have the right to decide where they live, not just my opinion.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not all "businesses" file special taxes or have a separate tax ID.
    So, a business is no different than the person who owns it unless specifically stated.
    That is certainly not the default here.

    As some, probably most, businesses are clearly identifiably different than the person who owns the business, it will not be accepted that when the word "business" is consistently interchangeable with a person.

    My boss owns the company I work for and he clearly is not the same thing as the company itself. If his company dies (like because it got sued out of existence due to violating anti-discrimination laws) he doesn't die as well and likewise does not even lose his own personal money.

    Of course I am stating what "is" and not what "ought" to be but regardless, the current state is that most businesses are separate from individuals so it is not currently accurate to call them one and the same.

    When the word "individual" or "person" is used here, it is referring to a person and not a business.

    Also, when you are referring to what ought to be instead of what is make sure to be clear that you are referring to "ought".

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Even so, I forward the same arguments that we OUGHT not make the distinction even when they file special taxes.
    Then make your argument. But it can't be based on the premise that businesses and individuals are the exact same thing until you support that they are, or ought to be, the same thing.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, the right to live somewhere is not directly tied to having the ability to attain what is needed to survive.
    i have every right fly myself to Antarctica and plop myself down on an ICE Cap. If i want to go trudging into the desert all on my lonesome... I can do it.
    My right is not effected by my ability to survive and one is not related to the other.
    I'm talking about surviving within a society so forwarding places where society does not exist is not relevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First of all, I did support that point. I did so by pointing to the past at far more bigoted times where people didn't get starved out by what you are talking about.
    And that that is what happened in the past is not only completely unsupported but seems patently false. I'm sure there were many areas where blacks were not allowed to live and the only reason they weren't forced out by refusal to sell to them is because they were forced out by much stronger means instead, like outright force.

    So no, you have not supported that the kind of scenario I presented cannot happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is far more likely that a bigoted area will extort money, then completly refuse service in a free market.
    If the goal is to have no blacks in the area, then the bigots will do what is most likely to get them to stay away. And making it impossible for blacks to buy what they need to live in the area would be a very effective tactic.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't see how.

    That is like saying if I kill someone becuase you pay me too, that doesn't actually make me a murderer, or a psycopath.
    Bad analogy. The difference is that a murderer is defined by an action and a bigot is defined by thought. So when one take the action to kill, they become a murderer as the definition is defined by the action of killing.

    But a bigot is not defined by action. The definition of a bigot is (from the dictionary) "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc." So regardless of what action one takes, it they strongly dislike they are a bigot and if the don't strongly dislike they are not a bigot.

    And since the shopkeeper does not actually dislike the people he's refusing to serve, he's not a bigot.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not sneaking in the premise, I'm declaring and supporting the lack of destinction, and that we OUGHT not make a distinction.
    I agree that you are declaring but I don't see any support for the position that we ought to remove the distinction.

    Please provide support for that position if you are going to continue to forward it. If you already provided it I missed it and ask that you either re-post it or re-state.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No reasoning offered, so rejected opinion.
    Then I will offer reasoning. In the first scenario, you are not operating as a business so you are to be considered an individual. In the second scenario you are operating as a business and therefore should be considered a business.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    also, is ought fallacy.
    No, it's a fact. By definition is you are selling something you are operating as a business and are subject to the rules of commerce.

    You can certainly argue that it ought to be different but that does not change the fact that currently the actions you described are subject to the rules of commerce.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have to actually make the argument, I do not share your opinion or assumptions on this issue.
    What specifically don't you agree with?

    Do you disagree that people have the right to live where they choose to live?
    Do you disagree that a society making it impossible for a person to live in a certain area is a society that denies that person the right to live where he chooses?
    Do you disagree that such a society should not be allowed to deny a person the right to live where he chooses?
    Do you disagree that if a society does not make it impossible, but more difficult when compared to other races, for a person of a certain race to live where he chooses is likewise intolerable?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes we can vote in tyranny of the majority(or minority) if we like.
    We ought not do that just as I am arguing.
    My argument is not way based on tyranny of the majority. It is based on individual rights.

    If one accepts that a person has the individual right to decide where he will live, then the right must be protected by not allowing a society to force him out of a certain area. So just as a local population cannot beat, threaten, or intimidate a person to move away, it likewise cannot intentionally starve him to get him to move away.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No releivant destinction exists when the buisness is individually owned, thus we ought not treat them as destinct.
    That seems to be based on what you personally consider "relevant".

    I work for a company that is individually owned and I know that OSHA rules apply to the company. Such rules do not apply to individuals. I know we aren't discussing OSHA but if there is no difference between an individual and an individually-owned company then either OSHA rules should not apply to the company or they should apply to individuals. Otherwise there is clearly a difference between a company and a person.

    And to be clear - while I understand that you want the rules to change so that the individually-owned business I work for has the same right to refuse to deal with minorities in the same way that an individual has that right, are you likewise for erasing ALL legal differences between the company I work for and individuals, such as adhering to OSHA regulations (for starters)? If your position is that there ought to be no difference between a privately-owned company and an individual, the answer should be "yes" but I'll let you answer for yourself.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have supported that assertion.
    Claims of support is not support. Please show me where I have forwarded infringing on anyone's individual rights.

    And please keep in mind that it is not an accepted premise that infringing on a businesses rights is the same as infringing on an individuals right. You may argue that it is but until the issue is concede by me, it is not an accepted premise that they are the same.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Welcome to the 21st century.. Let me introduce you to the internet and it's announimouse ordering delivered to you door services.
    That in no way supports the assertion that I'm suggesting anything that infringes on the rights of others.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have, please re-read my last post.
    I see nothing in the last post that I believe supports that we've made bigotry illegal.

    I will consider that claim retracted until I see support that it is so.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    These responses are getting very long. don't act like I am ignoring some major point when it didn't make up very much of your response or tie in directly to most of it.
    That said, I'll respond to it here.
    I didn't say "major point". I said you ignored an argument of mine and as I did want a response to it, I re-posted it.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, that isn't how money works, and the entire argument ignores the free market response already offered to your other examples.
    A group of people denying you services does not make your money worth less or "worthless", and they are not by extension denying you the right to earn money.
    If you walk into a town and no one will accept your money, your money has NO value in that situation. So no matter how much work you perform, you will not be paid in anything that has any value in that town (assuming you are paid in money).




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, the kind of "disadvantage" already exists in the market, and people seem to function just fine.
    That is, in the case where a person carries a Master card, but some businesses don't accept it. Or where personal checks are not accepted.
    In those situations, the business will allow a different kind of transaction ("How about Visa? How about cash?"). If the business refuses any and all forms of payment then the person's money is worthless and they are essentially working for nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are assuming some value or % of disadvantage that is not being enumerated or justified.
    If no one will allow someone to buy anything then the value of their money is ZERO. That's pretty well enumerated and justified in my book.

    As far as other percentages, I hold that a black person's money and a white person's money should have the same value so any difference is intolerable so exactly how we get to a certain percentage number is irrelevant.
    Last edited by mican333; March 30th, 2015 at 05:40 PM.

  8. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    There we don't agree and, frankly, you don't know how intimately involved a business owner would be in that transaction. I can attest to the fact that small business owners are often very intimately involved with every detail of their business. And regardless whether they are or not, it is their private owned business which is and should be treated differently than a large publicly traded corporation. Read the Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision for the Supreme Court's ruling on such issues.
    Again, for me this part of the argument is not about the law so much. Generally I think if you want to run your business as a bigot you should be able to do that. But I still think that its rude and uncivil to to object to serving people who mean you no harm nor demand any acceptance from you for their lifestyle. Just because the nature of their business clues you in to their life, doesn't make you a part of it.

    I do own a business as well as work at one and in both cases we don't make it our business to judge the personal lives of our customers nor when I go shopping do I expect judgement from anyone I patronize. Unless I'm rude to them they should not be rude to me.

    As to the link, I don't see enough of a difference to make a difference.
    Applying the law beyond government accommodations is very significant.

    Another point - our legal system respects and acknowledges the right or Freedom to Contract, which must necessarily include the freedom to NOT contract. It goes against our legal system's understanding of those freedoms to force someone into a transaction that they choose not to enter.
    We generally agree on that.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Just want to weigh in with a few facts here. This law is very different from the original Federal law and is very different from the law passed in other states:

    https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.com...s-controversy/

    ...
    Indeed, as Gov. Pence provided in his statement yesterday: “Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
    The flaw in this implication is that it is misleading for several reasons. The federal act was deemed inapplicable to state actions. Consequently, several states have copied the federal act or have adopted similar legislation.
    ...
    What are the controversial provisions and why?
    Let’s start with Section 5, which reads: “As used in this chapter, ‘exercise of religion’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” (Emphasis added.)
    First, note the lack of any restrictive language in this paragraph. The word “includes” is deliberately used in place of “means.” The latter would at least limit “any exercise of religion” to the predicate definition. “Includes” just means that this is but one example of exercising religion. (Here the law goes beyond its most similar counterparts in Texas and New Mexico which use “means”.) While this language indeed mirrors the federal legislation, proponents of the IRFRA have submitted that Indiana’s constitution protects religious freedom to greater extent than federal law. Second, religion is not defined. So, “any exercise of religion” is subject to a fairly broad interpretation. Third, any action which may fall under the “exercise of religion” may or not be “compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” In other words, even if the belief is at the fringe of what a religion may or may not hold true, it falls under this definition of exercising one’s religion.
    Section 7 then reads:
    As used in this chapter, “person” includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
    (Emphasis added.) The potential danger in this aspect of the statute is that it may become self-fulfilling. For example, as has been cited before, say a hotel corporation with a religious owner refuses service to an individual based upon his religious beliefs. Now, even if that person had not previously exercised such practices, this Act, which requires no more than two religious practices that fall into this category, would allow a corporation to begin a discriminatory practice in the name of free exercise (and remember now how broadly exercising religion is defined?).
    This inevitably leads the reader to Section 9, which reads:
    A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding,regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.
    (Emphasis added.)
    In other words, you can defend yourself in a criminal or civil action on the very broad basis of “any exercise of religion.” Where this may apply the most would be a Court’s ability or inability to apply a human rights ordinance against someone with a religious objection. (That we can even have an exercise in religion running directly against a human rights ordinance is cause alone for concern.) Such ordinances typically prohibit the discrimination employment, housing, education and public accommodations on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The cities and counties in Indiana with these ordinances in effect are the City of Bloomington, the City of Evansville, the City of Indianapolis, Marion County, Monroe County, and the City of South Bend.
    What makes this law new and different is its application to disputes between private citizens. That is not to say that such laws could not be used in private matters (in fact, Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas all have similar prvisions). Indiana’s version of the law, though, goes the extra mile to ensure the matter could remain between private individuals. It is the only one I have seen where the State can explicitly intervene at its discretion.
    So any claims this is similar to the Federal law and the other States' laws are wrong. The claim that Pence made that it only applies to the government is also false - the law explicitly applies to private individuals. The law clear does allow discrimination to occur and without sexuality being a protected class within the state, would provide a legal platform to do so.

    What's more telling that this is a poorly written law is the terrible job Pence did in avoiding answering direct questions regarding discrimination and the belated realization that it needs to be tightened up.

    This may turn out to be a good thing if it adds sexuality as a protected class. And even if it takes a while to do so, any cases brought to court (and believe me many would love to test this) will keep this at the forefront of the culture war engaged by the religious right.

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I thought it was an accepted premise that people have the right to decide where they live, not just my opinion.
    That wasn't the part of the quote I was referring to.
    It is your extrapolation that me denying you my goods, is some how denying your right to live somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That is certainly not the default here.

    As some, probably most, businesses are clearly identifiable different than the person who owns the business, it will not be accepted that when the word "business" is consistently interchangeable with a person.

    My boss owns the company I work for and he clearly is not the same thing as the company itself. If his company dies (like because it got sued out of existence due to violating anti-discrimination laws) he doesn't die as well and likewise does not even lose his own personal money.

    Of course I am stating what "is" and not what "ought" to be but regardless, the current state is that most businesses are separate from individuals so it is not currently accurate to call them one and the same.

    When the word "individual" or "person" is used here, it is referring to a person and not a business.

    Also, when you are referring to what ought to be instead of what is make sure to be clear that you are referring to "ought".
    I am trying to be clear in my use, In fact I think I have consistently and exclusively refereed to what OUGHT to be the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    Then make your argument. But it can't be based on the premise that businesses and individuals are the exact same thing until you support that they are, or ought to be, the same thing.
    I have made that case already. You seem to be confused by my responses. I'll see if I can't summarize at the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm talking about surviving within a society so forwarding places where society does not exist is not relevant.
    Unless the society is prohibiting your natural use of your own property, then it is directly comparable to the wilderness.
    The right to live where you wish is not limited to within a social group, and thus your argument MUST apply to both in order to be valid.
    That is if you are establishing some principle.

    My wilderness example shows that your point is invalid, and your appeal to "within society" is special pleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And that that is what happened in the past is not only completely unsupported but seems patently false. I'm sure there were many areas where blacks were not allowed to live and the only reason they weren't forced out by refusal to sell to them is because they were forced out by much stronger means instead, like outright force.

    So no, you have not supported that the kind of scenario I presented cannot happen.
    Fair enough on that point.
    I still maintain the internet point, and the free market point.
    So, I do still consider my position supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If the goal is to have no blacks in the area, then the bigots will do what is most likely to get them to stay away. And making it impossible for blacks to buy what they need to live in the area would be a very effective tactic.
    O.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Bad analogy. The difference is that a murderer is defined by an action and a bigot is defined by thought. So when one take the action to kill, they become a murderer as the definition is defined by the action of killing.

    But a bigot is not defined by action. The definition of a bigot is (from the dictionary) "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc." So regardless of what action one takes, it they strongly dislike they are a bigot and if the don't strongly dislike they are not a bigot.

    And since the shopkeeper does not actually dislike the people he's refusing to serve, he's not a bigot.
    Note sure I totally agree with that, but I see your point.

    My problem is, you can't call a person a bigot who never acts on it. He may be a bigot, but in the same sense he can be a murder. (hating his neighbor), he may be an adulter (lusting after women who aren't his wife).

    Your talking about the heart of a person that you can't possibly know without his action. This of course IMO is the same for all character traits of man.

    The only way a person is a bigot in the sense that we are discussing it here, is when his actions are involved.
    When we say the law prohibits one from being a bigot, of course we are not talking about his private thought life. I think to speak on it in that manner is not productive.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Bad analogy. The difference is that a murderer is defined by an action and a bigot is defined by thought. So when one take the action to kill, they become a murderer as the definition is defined by the action of killing.

    But a bigot is not defined by action. The definition of a bigot is (from the dictionary) "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc." So regardless of what action one takes, it they strongly dislike they are a bigot and if the don't strongly dislike they are not a bigot.

    And since the shopkeeper does not actually dislike the people he's refusing to serve, he's not a bigot.
    I'll try and do this in the summary.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, it's a fact. By definition is you are selling something you are operating as a business and are subject to the rules of commerce.

    You can certainly argue that it ought to be different but that does not change the fact that currently the actions you described are subject to the rules of commerce.
    No so fast, What law of commerce are you referring to? Please link or support your claim to fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What specifically don't you agree with?

    Do you disagree that people have the right to live where they choose to live?
    Do you disagree that a society making it impossible for a person to live in a certain area is a society that denies that person the right to live where he chooses?
    Do you disagree that such a society should not be allowed to deny a person the right to live where he chooses?
    Do you disagree that if a society does not make it impossible, but more difficult when compared to other races, for a person of a certain race to live where he chooses is likewise intolerable?
    1- agree
    2- Disagree
    3- Agree
    4- disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My argument is not way based on tyranny of the majority. It is based on individual rights.

    If one accepts that a person has the individual right to decide where he will live, then the right must be protected by not allowing a society to force him out of a certain area. So just as a local population cannot beat, threaten, or intimidate a person to move away, it likewise cannot intentionally starve him to get him to move away.
    I don't hold this statement to be relevant to our discussion because it is a nonsequentular.
    Me denying you access to my goods and property =/= starving you out.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That seems to be based on what you personally consider "relevant".

    I work for a company that is individually owned and I know that OSHA rules apply to the company. Such rules do not apply to individuals. I know we aren't discussing OSHA but if there is no difference between an individual and an individually-owned company then either OSHA rules should not apply to the company or they should apply to individuals. Otherwise there is clearly a difference between a company and a person.

    And to be clear - while I understand that you want the rules to change so that the individually-owned business I work for has the same right to refuse to deal with minorities in the same way that an individual has that right, are you likewise for erasing ALL legal differences between the company I work for and individuals, such as adhering to OSHA regulations (for starters)? If your position is that there ought to be no difference between a privately-owned company and an individual, the answer should be "yes" but I'll let you answer for yourself.
    Yes.
    If OSHA is valid, it should apply to individuals as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Claims of support is not support. Please show me where I have forwarded infringing on anyone's individual rights.

    And please keep in mind that it is not an accepted premise that infringing on a businesses rights is the same as infringing on an individuals right. You may argue that it is but until the issue is concede by me, it is not an accepted premise that they are the same.
    Mican, i'm not going to play this game where I make an argument and you ignore it because you don't like or agree with the premises, and then you claim I have not made a case at all.

    My argument has premises, if you don't like them that is fine. But your acceptance is not required for me to have offered an argument and support.



    ------ My argument ---
    1) Individually owned businesses rely on the rights and labor of the Individual to exist at all.
    - For example a cake maker, who owns and operates cake making business. if he refused to personally make X cake, that becomes the same as the business refusing.

    2) Thus there is no distinction unless it is agreed too in writing by the person establishing it.
    So, when I walk out side, having signed no paperwork and being to do "business" (IE transactions of goods and services) I have given up none of my rights by doing so. So, too the cake maker, by simply posting a sign or having his tools in another building than his personal residence, doesn't give up his personal right to associate as he sees fit, or to provide the goods they see fit.

    3) Because of 1 & 2, individually owned business ought to have their rights to be bigoted protected.
    - For example, (supposing for sake of argument that a company is different than an individual) compelling a Jew to associate with the Nazi party represents and Undue infringement on the individual's rights. And forcing the business to close down unduly punishes the individual effectively saying they are not allowed to sell their goods unless they forfeit their right to associate. After all, the business can't fire the owner as they are one in the same. And no business can provide goods and services that their workers refuse, which when owner and operator are one and the same, is no distinction at all. (see #1 again)

    4) In this way, forcing a privately owned business to associate against their will ought to be considered a violation of the individual's rights.

    5) Further compelling a person to give up individual rights in order to be considered "a business" ought not be the case.


    ---My counter arguments to some claims paraphrased.---

    Mican - people have the right to live where they wish, denial of goods and services is an infringement on that right.
    (counter) People do have the right to live where they wish, however provision of goods and services by others is not relevant to that right. Just as the lack of Goods and Services at the North Pole, does not effect my right to go there and live if I so wish.

    Mican - Money that is refused has no value.
    (Counter), money is inherently a store of value refusal to accept it by some does not diminish it.

    Mican - There is some level of harm done to a person when their Money is not accepted.
    (counter) That level of Harm is not measurable, nor is there a system that can accurately measure it, so such an abstract Idea can not be used to violate the rights of business owners.

    Mican - If bigotry is allowed in buisness, then it may become the case where a person is unable to purchase essental goods and services.
    (Counter) 1) In todays fr
    ee market society that is near impossible. The existence of the internet and online anonmous home delivery services effectivly make such a thing becoming realtiy to be unreasonable.
    Thus we should not make laws as though it is highly likely.
    (Counter) 2) The Free market stands as a capable hedge to prevent the utter starvation of a minority group due to a lack of sellers to provide their needs.

    Mican - "The free market" is not a specific thing so as to prevent the previous objection from becoming reality.
    (Counter) The free market is indeed a specific thing. It is an active force in our society that has a long track record of providing the needs of the people. There is no reason to think that bigotry would be able to effectively shut out the free market.
    Especially where Bigotry remains within it's legal bounds (IE not infringing on the rights of others to open businesses or some such.
    The worst one may expect in a highly bigoted area, is that minorities would pay a higher price foor goods and services due to lack of competition.
    To serve man.

  11. Likes evensaul liked this post
  12. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    England.
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Given that a similar federal law has been in place for decades, and dozens of states have enacted similar laws with no significant evidence that real harm has been produced, I don't see how the Harm Principle can apply.
    If there are similar laws on the statutes of other states then why is this law creating such controversy?

    As I understand it this legislation was proposed so that pastors wouldn’t be forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies, which would contravene their religious beliefs. If that was all the law entailed then it doesn’t seem unreasonable, after all I can’t imagine anyone forcing an Islamic imam to perform such ceremonies.

    The problem as I see it is that this law may be interpreted further and allow a denial of basic services on the grounds of the religious beliefs of those providing those services and if access to essential services is denied then such denial could cause people harm. If this legislation through interpretation allows for discrimination that may cause harm then it needs amending.

  13. #51
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think you are ignoring a pertinent distinction which is a person's rights versus a business' right.
    In these cases however there is no distinction. For a "closely held" business, of which a sole proprietorship or partnership would qualify there is no distinction between the two. The business is the individual. The business is not a separate person as corporations are because no separate entity is needed for contracting, etc. I think we could walk through a similar argument for corporations (my rights don't end just because I am exercising them jointly, see free speech arguments), but for the moment lets set that aside.

    So presuming we are talking about these kinds of situations, would that satisfy your concern?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Assuming one understands the rationale for anti-discrimination laws regarding race and religion, they can understand the rationale for laws regarding sexual orientation.
    I think the issue is, I don't understand that rationale. There certainly could be a compelling governmental interest in scenarios like the only hospital in town (though I think it would still fail the second test) or the only source of food, but certainly not in scenarios like a bakery for a wedding cake in a major city.

    So what is the rationale, even in the race version of this, that makes the desire not to be inconvenienced (sorry if that sounds harsh, but in the end going to another bakery or dinner is more an inconvenience than anything else. The emotional issue that comes with discrimination is of course personal, and difficult, but it comes in a whole range of scenarios not covered by law so I'm not sure it is really applicable here anyway) trump an individual's ability not to be forced to violate their belief system?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dio
    Why is the above discrimination not wrong?
    First noting that I am obviously a defender of the freedom of association side of this argument I think the defense one could propose, or that the other side usually does propose is that that is a "material" discrimination. IE the race/sex/creed issue is germane to the position and therefore the discrimination is functional rather than personal.

    Now, one could make a similar argument about the situations covered under the myriad RFRA laws by saying that it is functionally relevant that a Muslim bakery not serve a gay couple, otherwise it ceases to be a Muslim bakery.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  15. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    This religious liberty law is just another way for ignorant people to keep discriminating against people who have done nothing to them. Homosexuals are not causing any harm to your business, all they want is bread or an appointment. This law is only going to spread ignorance. It astounds me that it is 2015. No one has died because they have gotten married, no one has become ill because they have gotten married. I understand that it is your business and you have the decision to deny your business to anyone. I do not understand why you would deny them because of who they are. I am at a loss for words.

  16. #53
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by InTheLonelyHou View Post
    This religious liberty law is just another way for ignorant people to keep discriminating against people who have done nothing to them.
    Welcome to ODN!


    You could well be correct that this law is nothing more than a "way for ignorant people to keep discriminating," but allow me to ask a question. Why is it the job of the law to prevent people from being ignorant? Shouldn't a person, within the confines of their own life be allowed to be ignorant? If not, and if we presume the it is the government's job to prevent this via the law, then who gets to decide what is "not ignorant?" What body gets to decide what the correct opinions are?

    We might well sigh at these people or think their position is stupid, fine. But it is a big leap from thinking their idea is dumb to saying that we should have the police stop them from having such an idea.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,801
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Shouldn't a person, within the confines of their own life be allowed to be ignorant? If not, and if we presume the it is the government's job to prevent this via the law, then who gets to decide what is "not ignorant?" What body gets to decide what the correct opinions are?
    Because operating a business isn't a right, it's a privilege. We license businesses for which they receive rights, and also responsibilities, and business licenses can be denied. You're not "within the confines of their own life".
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Because operating a business isn't a right, it's a privilege. We license businesses for which they receive rights, and also responsibilities, and business licenses can be denied. You're not "within the confines of their own life".
    Because a person can't sell cakes unless you give them the right too?
    I don't think so.
    To serve man.

  19. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That wasn't the part of the quote I was referring to.
    It is your extrapolation that me denying you my goods, is some how denying your right to live somewhere.
    If a person cannot obtain ANY of the necessities from the local market, they will not be able to live in the local area.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Unless the society is prohibiting your natural use of your own property, then it is directly comparable to the wilderness.
    The right to live where you wish is not limited to within a social group, and thus your argument MUST apply to both in order to be valid.
    That is if you are establishing some principle.

    My wilderness example shows that your point is invalid, and your appeal to "within society" is special pleading.
    No it's not. We are talking about societal rules. A person can deny another person their rights and therefore it is appropriate to set rules against doing that. We can't do the same for nature.

    If a person is killed by a boulder, there is no violation of his rights even though his life was removed. If he is murdered by another person, his right to life was violated.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Fair enough on that point.
    I still maintain the internet point, and the free market point.
    So, I do still consider my position supported.
    As far as I know, I rebutted the free market argument so I do not accept the assertion that you have supported your position with that particular argument.

    As far as the internet goes, you need electricity to operate a computer. If the entire community is denying one their services, that would include electricity. After all, the local utility companies should have the right to not associate with that particular home owner, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My problem is, you can't call a person a bigot who never acts on it. He may be a bigot, but in the same sense he can be a murder. (hating his neighbor), he may be an adulter (lusting after women who aren't his wife).

    Your talking about the heart of a person that you can't possibly know without his action. This of course IMO is the same for all character traits of man.

    The only way a person is a bigot in the sense that we are discussing it here, is when his actions are involved.
    When we say the law prohibits one from being a bigot, of course we are not talking about his private thought life. I think to speak on it in that manner is not productive.
    I'm not going to redefine a word because its definition doesn't fit with what you are actually trying to say.

    If you don't mean that bigotry, as it is defined, is against the law then don't say it is.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No so fast, What law of commerce are you referring to? Please link or support your claim to fact.
    I don't think I need to provide a link to support that there are anti-discrimination laws that effect commerce. You accept that as true, right?







    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1- agree
    2- Disagree
    I'll stop at your first disagreement and support the point that a society making it impossible for a person to live in a certain area is a society that denies that person the right to live where he chooses.

    Denying someone the ability to do something is the same as denying them the right to do something. As an example, if you arrange a situation where it is impossible for someone to survive (such as throwing them in a pool with weights on their legs) you have denied them the ability to live and therefore the right to live. If you force them to live in a place where privacy is nonexistent (lock them in a room that is continuously monitored), you are denying them the right to privacy.

    So there is my support for point 2. If it is not rebutted I will consider point 2 to be accepted and will move on to point 4 (as you already conceded point 3).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't hold this statement to be relevant to our discussion because it is a nonsequentular.
    Me denying you access to my goods and property =/= starving you out.
    But an entire community denying one goods and services = starving out. I mean if you cannot buy food in a town you are going to starve.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes.
    If OSHA is valid, it should apply to individuals as well.
    How about the difference? If the company I work for goes out of business, the owner's private money is safe. If there is no difference between the owner and the company then there can be no separation between his money and his business' money and if his business loses more money than it has, his own bank account should be drained until the balance is met or he has absolutely no money left.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican, i'm not going to play this game where I make an argument and you ignore it because you don't like or agree with the premises, and then you claim I have not made a case at all.

    My argument has premises, if you don't like them that is fine. But your acceptance is not required for me to have offered an argument and support.
    Before any argument based on a premise is supported, the premise must be supported (or accepted).

    You forward the premise that individually-owned businesses and individuals should have the same rights. You do need to support that premise before it can be accepted in this debate.

    And I see you are attempting to do so below.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ------ My argument ---
    Ah, a logic chain. Very good (sincerely). I will not respond to the points I and will respond to the first point I disagree with and stop there.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) Individually owned businesses rely on the rights and labor of the Individual to exist at all.
    - For example a cake maker, who owns and operates cake making business. if he refused to personally make X cake, that becomes the same as the business refusing.


    2) Thus there is no distinction unless it is agreed too in writing by the person establishing it.
    So, when I walk out side, having signed no paperwork and being to do "business" (IE transactions of goods and services) I have given up none of my rights by doing so. So, too the cake maker, by simply posting a sign or having his tools in another building than his personal residence, doesn't give up his personal right to associate as he sees fit, or to provide the goods they see fit.

    3) Because of 1 & 2, individually owned business ought to have their rights to be bigoted protected.
    - For example, (supposing for sake of argument that a company is different than an individual) compelling a Jew to associate with the Nazi party represents and Undue infringement on the individual's rights. And forcing the business to close down unduly punishes the individual effectively saying they are not allowed to sell their goods unless they forfeit their right to associate. After all, the business can't fire the owner as they are one in the same. And no business can provide goods and services that their workers refuse, which when owner and operator are one and the same, is no distinction at all. (see #1 again)
    But there is a distinction. If the business violates anti-discrimination rules and loses the lawsuit and loses all of its money, the owner as a private individual gets to keep his own money (his own bank account is not effected). So the current rules of commerce gives the individual certain personal advantages when running a business by keeping the business separate from the person running it.

    And a person does not have to run a business - it's an OPTION. It's pretty much like any job - if you want to have that particular job you need to fulfill the job requirements. If you categorically refuse to dig ditches, then you can't be a ditch digger. And if you categorically refuse to do what is required to open and maintain a business, then you can't run a business. So NO ONE is forced to associate with those that they don't want to associate with because NO ONE is forced to operate a business.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ---My counter arguments to some claims paraphrased.---
    Okay. If I feel I've offered a rebuttal already in this post, I will ignore that particular argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    COLOR="#0000CD"]Mican - Money that is refused has no value. [/COLOR]
    (Counter), money is inherently a store of value refusal to accept it by some does not diminish it.
    Money has no inherent value. It only as value because we as a society agrees it has value. If we all agreed that money has no value, then it would have the same exchange value as monopoly money.

    So if one goes into a store and the owner does not accept the money offered, it has NO VALUE in that store. And if that extends to an entire town, then one effectively cannot earn something that is a medium of exchange (as it cannot be exchanged)



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican - There is some level of harm done to a person when their Money is not accepted.
    (counter) That level of Harm is not measurable, nor is there a system that can accurately measure it, so such an abstract Idea can not be used to violate the rights of business owner
    It is certainly measurable. If 100% of stores refuse to accept one's money his ability to purchase items is 0%. And in that situation, a person is clearly being harmed.
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican - If bigotry is allowed in buisness, then it may become the case where a person is unable to purchase essental goods and services.
    (Counter) 1) In todays fr
    ee market society that is near impossible. The existence of the internet and online anonmous home delivery services effectivly make such a thing becoming realtiy to be unreasonable.
    Thus we should not make laws as though it is highly likely.
    (Counter) 2) The Free market stands as a capable hedge to prevent the utter starvation of a minority group due to a lack of sellers to provide their needs.
    Counter 1 - addressed above.
    Counter 2 - Addressed below


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican - "The free market" is not a specific thing so as to prevent the previous objection from becoming reality.
    (Counter) The free market is indeed a specific thing. It is an active force in our society that has a long track record of providing the needs of the people. There is no reason to think that bigotry would be able to effectively shut out the free market.
    Especially where Bigotry remains within it's legal bounds (IE not infringing on the rights of others to open businesses or some such.
    The worst one may expect in a highly bigoted area, is that minorities would pay a higher price foor goods and services due to lack of competition.
    The free market is not a magic wand that rights all social wrongs. The free market is a system that allows people to pursue what they think will be be profitable. So if there's no apparent profit in X, then the free market will not facilitate X happening.

    So going back to my "white town" scenario, a bunch of racists decide to settle in a certain area where there are no minorities and likewise do their best, within legal boundaries, to keep any minority from moving into town. So a black person moves into town, finds that none of the stores will sell to him, and is forced to move out as he cannot survive within town. If a store owner open a shop that will cater to minorities he will find that he has little to no shoppers as there are no (or very few) black people in town and the white customers are boycotting his store (also legal) due to his policy of selling to minorities. Odds are any store owner will realize this before he opens the store and therefore not open one in the first place.

    So I see no reason to think that there's any guarantee that the free market will guarantee that a store that will sell to blacks will open in an area where the population is primarily racist if stores have the option of not selling to blacks.

    ---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In these cases however there is no distinction. For a "closely held" business, of which a sole proprietorship or partnership would qualify there is no distinction between the two. The business is the individual. The business is not a separate person as corporations are because no separate entity is needed for contracting, etc. I think we could walk through a similar argument for corporations (my rights don't end just because I am exercising them jointly, see free speech arguments), but for the moment lets set that aside.

    So presuming we are talking about these kinds of situations, would that satisfy your concern?
    Yes. I used to work as a freelance videographer and used a DBA. About the only noticeable difference is the name on the checks and a bank account. Besides that, it was pretty much the same as when I had them write a check to me personally which I deposited in my own bank account.

    But in the case of a cake shop, you have a store front and employees so it's not the case on an individual laborer working on his own.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think the issue is, I don't understand that rationale. There certainly could be a compelling governmental interest in scenarios like the only hospital in town (though I think it would still fail the second test) or the only source of food, but certainly not in scenarios like a bakery for a wedding cake in a major city.

    So what is the rationale, even in the race version of this, that makes the desire not to be inconvenienced (sorry if that sounds harsh, but in the end going to another bakery or dinner is more an inconvenience than anything else. The emotional issue that comes with discrimination is of course personal, and difficult, but it comes in a whole range of scenarios not covered by law so I'm not sure it is really applicable here anyway) trump an individual's ability not to be forced to violate their belief system?
    I would say the issue is even distribution of resources. We all intrinsically have an equal right to what the world produces (land, water, food, raw materials) and our society has the obligation, as best as it can, to distribute the materials in a fashion that provides maximum benefit for all and respects the right of people to have a reasonable chance of acquiring what they need to survive. So we do out best to set up a system where the rules ideally accomplish just that. So we do allow for those who are harder working, smarter, more creative, more talented, etc. to receive a larger portion of the materials. If one manages to create a successful company that not only effectively turns raw materials into something useful to society while likewise providing productive work for thousands of people, it makes sense to reward that person with "larger slice of the pie" and they gain more material possessions because of their contribution.

    So it's not a problem for a smart man to be better able to buy what he wants because he's smart. His intelligence entitles him.
    So it's not a problem for a hard-working man to be better able to buy what he wants because he's hard-working. His hard work entitles him.
    So it's not a problem for a talented man to be better able to buy what he wants because he's talented. His talented entitles him.

    But it is a problem for a white man to be better able to buy what he wants because he's white. His race does not entitle him to be better able to buy food, shelter, or even the luxuries as he has no greater right to access the materials that produce those things than anyone else.

    I don't think we should be so strict regarding one who is only providing labor (like when I was a freelance videographer) but once land and materials are involved, it is a different issue.
    Last edited by mican333; March 31st, 2015 at 11:49 AM.

  20. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If a person cannot obtain ANY of the necessities from the local market, they will not be able to live in the local area.
    That is not true, one can live a self sufficient life.
    The difficulty's faced by living in a specific area, are not relevant to your right to live there.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No it's not. We are talking about societal rules. A person can deny another person their rights and therefore it is appropriate to set rules against doing that. We can't do the same for nature.

    If a person is killed by a boulder, there is no violation of his rights even though his life was removed. If he is murdered by another person, his right to life was violated.
    No it's not what? Comparable to the wilderness?
    Of course it is, your use of the bolder example is a bad analogy, because no one is doing such a thing.
    No one is denying any right, as you have no rights to my possessions nore do you have any claim to my person or labor.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As far as I know, I rebutted the free market argument so I do not accept the assertion that you have supported your position with that particular argument.

    As far as the internet goes, you need electricity to operate a computer. If the entire community is denying one their services, that would include electricity. After all, the local utility companies should have the right to not associate with that particular home owner, right?
    "the entire market" is demonstrated to not be a valid factor.
    Also, I don't see it as reasonable to include municipal entities such as water and power in your argument. I mean, unless you can point to the current power company that you think would deny services based on bigotry. It is not a reasonable assumption.

    You are in fact including many unreasonable assumptions.

    I would like you to repeat or point to your free market rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm not going to redefine a word because its definition doesn't fit with what you are actually trying to say.

    If you don't mean that bigotry, as it is defined, is against the law then don't say it is.
    I don't know what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

    By the definition, it is not simply a thought but also directly connected too and includes actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't think I need to provide a link to support that there are anti-discrimination laws that effect commerce. You accept that as true, right?
    I am calling into questions the laws application to owner operated companies.
    I'm not aware of what the law says or which specific ones you are refering too, and I don't think it is safe to simply assume the boad applications that are being used in this thread.

    You said that if you are selling anything you are automatically under the laws of commerce. I don't think that is a safe assumption, as it destroys your point that there is a destinction between an individual and a buisness.

    Certainly you recognize that an individual can sell stuff without being classified as a "buisness"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'll stop at your first disagreement and support the point that a society making it impossible for a person to live in a certain area is a society that denies that person the right to live where he chooses.

    Denying someone the ability to do something is the same as denying them the right to do something. As an example, if you arrange a situation where it is impossible for someone to survive (such as throwing them in a pool with weights on their legs) you have denied them the ability to live and therefore the right to live. If you force them to live in a place where privacy is nonexistent (lock them in a room that is continuously monitored), you are denying them the right to privacy.

    So there is my support for point 2. If it is not rebutted I will consider point 2 to be accepted and will move on to point 4 (as you already conceded point 3).
    Thank you for that..

    Your point is fundementally flawed and thus invalid.
    Denying goods and services is nothing like tying weights to your feet and throwing you in a pool.
    The latter is murder and is a direct stealing of your life through actions I have no right to do.
    The former is completly within my rights, and if you are to force me to give you my goods and services is actually more like theft from me.

    So you have it backwards and you offer a false analogy.

    bottom line, there is no "force" involved in the denial of services. The only force present is the TAKING of my goods and services.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    How about the difference? If the company I work for goes out of business, the owner's private money is safe. If there is no difference between the owner and the company then there can be no separation between his money and his business' money and if his business loses more money than it has, his own bank account should be drained until the balance is met or he has absolutely no money left.
    So you don't think I should have the right to engage in transactions with people where there is an agreed upon limit to my liability?

    I can't tell you "Mican, I will sell you X and if it doesn't work you can have up to half my kingdom"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But there is a distinction. If the business violates anti-discrimination rules and loses the lawsuit and loses all of its money, the owner as a private individual gets to keep his own money (his own bank account is not effected). So the current rules of commerce gives the individual certain personal advantages when running a business by keeping the business separate from the person running it.

    And a person does not have to run a business - it's an OPTION. It's pretty much like any job - if you want to have that particular job you need to fulfill the job requirements. If you categorically refuse to dig ditches, then you can't be a ditch digger. And if you categorically refuse to do what is required to open and maintain a business, then you can't run a business. So NO ONE is forced to associate with those that they don't want to associate with because NO ONE is forced to operate a business.
    I'm glad you put it that way. Let me ask you a question, because I hope to reveal a bit of inconsistency in your stance.

    Here you are making the same argument I did which you objected to. That is you are saying that a person is not forced to associate, he can simply choose not to.
    But, earlier you argued that a person MUST be allowed to conduct buisness (not run a buisness. but engage in commerce) in order to live.
    Do you see the contradiction?

    Another note, what is required to be a ditch digger, is to put a shovel in the ground and lift dirt out of it. It is not a requirement to dig a ditch for Ms Jones.
    So it is not required to associate with ALL people to be in buisness. That requirment is something that is arbitarily added and OUGHT NOT BE.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Money has no inherent value. It only as value because we as a society agrees it has value. If we all agreed that money has no value, then it would have the same exchange value as monopoly money.

    So if one goes into a store and the owner does not accept the money offered, it has NO VALUE in that store. And if that extends to an entire town, then one effectively cannot earn something that is a medium of exchange (as it cannot be exchanged)
    I think you are talking about currency and I'm talking about money.
    Bottom line, what we are all paid with is inherently connected to the faith of others to accept it as payment. Loss of that faith is not a violation of rights, it is an inherent problem(risk) that comes with accepting that form of payment.
    If I were to accept Monopoly money from you as payment for a Job, that is my bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It is certainly measurable. If 100% of stores refuse to accept one's money his ability to purchase items is 0%. And in that situation, a person is clearly being harmed.
    Sure we may be able to say that in a 100% environment, but such an environment is not a reasonable assumption and certainly not a reason to make laws to restrict freedoms on.
    If everyone with a gun murdered someone it would be really bad. That is not a reason to outlaw guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The free market is not a magic wand that rights all social wrongs. The free market is a system that allows people to pursue what they think will be be profitable. So if there's no apparent profit in X, then the free market will not facilitate X happening.

    So going back to my "white town" scenario, a bunch of racists decide to settle in a certain area where there are no minorities and likewise do their best, within legal boundaries, to keep any minority from moving into town. So a black person moves into town, finds that none of the stores will sell to him, and is forced to move out as he cannot survive within town. If a store owner open a shop that will cater to minorities he will find that he has little to no shoppers as there are no (or very few) black people in town and the white customers are boycotting his store (also legal) due to his policy of selling to minorities. Odds are any store owner will realize this before he opens the store and therefore not open one in the first place.

    So I see no reason to think that there's any guarantee that the free market will guarantee that a store that will sell to blacks will open in an area where the population is primarily racist if stores have the option of not selling to blacks.
    First, I want to ask a question.
    Suppose an extreme situation, where you personally cause an entire family to hate you. .. and i mean really hate you.
    You killed their kid or some such and are out after serving time or maybe just got a good lawyer and got out of it O.J. sytle. This family has family land (which is common around here at least) so they all live down the same street.
    BUT, one of the kids got a loan on thier house and didn't pay, so the bank took it and is now selling it.
    Now suppose you decide to purchase it and live there, surrounded by people that hate you.

    What responsibility do you have for choosing to live there? I mean when no one will talk to you and any encounter you have is negative, and they do all they can legally to make your life a living hell.(which neighbors can do)
    Perhaps they put up ugly stuff, or play music constantly just under ordinance levels, but enough to keep you up at night. You get the picture, barely legal harassment which you have no legal recourse to stop.
    Basically you live in a place where some grieving father may actually kill you.

    How much of that is your own fault for being stupid and choosing to live around people that hate you(maybe even arguably justifiably and reasonably so)?

    Now, I don't see the above as any different than a person choosing to insert themselves into an openly bigoted community. Certain challenges that come with it are
    being chosen, just as the challenge of living on the north poll would be choose by the free person excising his right to live there.

    I am sure you will hold that there is the added element of violating your right to commerce, but outside of that do we agree that are very, very similar?

    So, to re-state the question. do you see any fault or responsibility at all on behalf of the one choosing to live there?

    Why/why not?


    p.s. i will try to limit my responses to those directly connected to our logic train exchanges. we have a bit addressing of a point going on.
    To serve man.

  21. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,801
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because a person can't sell cakes unless you give them the right too?
    I don't think so.
    Well, you can up to a point. It would fall under hobby income but even those have rules including an income limit after which you'll have to have some interaction with the authorities.

    Perhaps I'll sell my homemade wine to the local underage kids...I'd make quite a good profit. My religion tells me that god gave us all things here to use and so I don't believe in a drinking age.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    CowboyX, most businesses do not require a license, and even a convicted felon has the right to open a business. The right to own a business and keep profits is the basic foundation of a capitalistic economy, which we have in the United States.
    Last edited by evensaul; March 31st, 2015 at 11:33 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  23. #60
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    First, I have no idea exactly what the Indiana law does and does not do. I have not read the law and opinions of it are all over the place.

    With that being said, I have not read any support to the view that the law would allow people the right to refuse service on the grounds of them being a particular sexual orientation. My understanding is that this law has no impact on individuals not engaged in a particular act of free speech or activism. In other words, a gay person cannot be denied a hamburger because he is gay. On the other hand, the restaurant could refuse to cater a gay wedding. This is, I think, an important distinction which, I am sure, will be irrelevant to the so-called progressive crowd.

    Frankly, if you are asking whether businesses should have the right to discriminate, I'd say why not? I think, as a society, we have come far enough that we don't need the training wheels required to understand how to treat people with respect. We don't need government, of all entities, being our moral compass. I have enough faith in mankind that most people, and by extension, most businesses, will serve to whomever walks in their doors. Why do we need laws when capitalism handles this issue extremely well. The more restrictions a business places on its willingness to sell, then the less the profits will be. I mean, there is a built-in punishment for the cake-maker who does not want to serve a gay wedding. That is a lost sale. Lost profit. Too much lost profit and that cake-maker will be replaced by one willing to sell to more people. So, when laws are created that limit the cake-maker's right to refuse service, it is appropriate for counter-laws to exist which return the right. Or, just get rid of all these discrimination and anti-discrimination laws altogether and be amazed at how well people figure it out. I promise, not one gay wedding will go without a cake do to an inability to find a bakery which will service them. Not one transgendered person will go hungry because they cannot find a hamburger joint that will sell them a burger. No one will be homeless because they cannot find a realtor. 50 years ago? 100 years ago? I think we needed some laws on the books. Today? I think we're good.

    I think it is sad that Indiana's religious folk felt under attack to the point where they believe they need laws to feel protected. At what point do we realize all these laws don't benefit our nation. Neither the new Indiana law nor the supposedly anti-discrimination laws that proceeded it. These are all just political scores that divide the rest of us when we all should be united against them, the politicians.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  24. Thanks theophilus thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
 

 
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on "Positive Liberty"
    By Castle in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 26th, 2006, 03:59 PM
  2. "Religious belief, itself, is an adaptation"
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: March 24th, 2006, 06:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •