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 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 174
  1. #141
    Registered User

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

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    A couple of pieces of Good News:

    Unlike in Indiana, It Is Now Illegal For A Federal Contractor To Fire Someone For Being LGBT:
    WASHINGTON -- For the first time, companies that have contracts with the federal government are now prohibited from firing or discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, thanks to an executive order that takes effect Wednesday.President Barack Obama signed the order in June 2014 banning workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors and the federal government. The administration took the last six months to provide rules to contractors, and to give companies time to put processes in place. The change affects 24,000 companies employing roughly 28 million workers, or about one-fifth of the nation's workforce.
    Obama had been pressing Congress for years to pass legislation addressing LGBT workplace discrimination, but finally took action himself when legislators did nothing. Top administration officials took pride Wednesday, so to speak, in the president's record on strengthening protections for the LGBT community.
    Obama to Call for End to ‘Conversion’ Therapies for Gay and Transgender Youth
    WASHINGTON — A 17-year-old transgender youth, Leelah Alcorn, stunned her friends and a vast Internet audience in December when she threw herself in front of a tractor-trailer after writing in an online suicide note that religious therapists had tried to convert her back to being a boy.
    In response, President Obama this week will call for an end to such psychiatric therapies aimed at “repairing” gay, lesbian and transgender youth, White House officials said. His decision on the sensitive issue is the latest example of his continuing embrace of gay rights.
    In a statement that was to be posted on Wednesday evening alongside a WhiteHouse.gov petition begun in honor of Ms. Alcorn, Mr. Obama condemned the psychiatric practice, sometimes called “conversion” or “reparative” therapy, which is supported by some socially conservative organizations and religious doctors. The petition has received more than 120,000 signatures in three months.
    Another right-wing Christian idea is beginning to see its end at last!

  2. #142
    Registered User

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

    Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    @Isbeld: My answer regarding force in my last response wasn't entirely complete and I can't edit it to clarify what I mean by socially and legally acceptable discrimination and where social force comes in. Here goes -

    1. Gay people are forced to identify their gender in certain business transactions, particularly where their marriage is concerned, on the off-change they get a bigoted business owner who might refuse service at the last minute. "Chris, happens to be man too, at the wedding, I hope that's OK."
    2. Gay people are otherwise forced to hide their sexuality in case they happen to work for a bigoted employer who might fire them for being so.
    3. Gay people are forced to shop around more if they happen to be unlucky enough to go to a bigoted business that refuses to serve them. "I'd love to use them for our wedding too, but I heard that they do not serve at gay weddings"
    4. Gay people who end up being denied service are forced unwillingly to participate in whatever feelings of ritual abuse that bigoted Christians feel when they have denied the devil.
    5. Gay people are forced into humiliating situations of discrimination or inconvenience until they have learned which are gay friendly and which are not.

    Hopefully, these scenarios clarify where a gay person would be forced to transact business in ways that no other group has to endure - that they do so under duress and usually without forewarning. One State senator suggested a sign or a notice of their religiosity so that gay people would be notified and would avoid those businesses but unfortunately that great idea was struck down.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; April 9th, 2015 at 08:32 AM.

  3. #143
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,503
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, as I explained, it is a bad analogy because it is not scalable the way the market is.
    It's not a bad analogy because it's not even an analogy. It's an example of the argument I was forwarding. I'm saying that because A is part of B does not necessarily mean that A and B are the same thing. Assuming you agree with my overall argument, the example of bones and people is a valid example.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But those are not rules, they are simply tools. There is a relevant difference.
    No, it's all rules. Yes, money is a tool but the rules of the market establish that money is a market tool. If the rules of the market did not recognize money, it would not be a tool of the market. And I'd like to repeat my argument in full and bold something in particular.

    And I don't want to bog this down in a semantic debate. When are talking about "the market" we are talking about a system of trade - a way for people to exchange products and the current system uses currency. There are many ways to do trades and an endless number of rules that we use or discard in regards to our system of trade (the market).

    To reject this argument over the definition of "tools" and "rules" is, I think, engaging in the very thing I don't want to do - which is bog this down over semantics. A disagreement with the point above should be based on showing that the opposite it true, not try to trip it up over word usage. I don't want to engage in that kind of debating.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The gov was implied by societies rules. It wasn't mentioned by name, but the idea is there.
    Otherwise, please clarify what you mean my social rules (I expanded on that point earlier).
    What I mean by societal rules are the agreed-upon rules that the society sets up. The PEOPLE are the society and the PEOPLE set the rules that effect them (ideally anyway), INCLUDING the rules of the marketplace.

    I will not venture to guess if creating societal rules necessitates that a government be formed because I feel that issue is irrelevant. Again, we are debating what the rules should be. Exactly how they are enforced and who enforces does not effect whether we should or should have a specific rule regarding the marketplace.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then your argument is rejected for being overly simplified and ignoring relevant factors to any conclusion we should make.
    Support or retract that my argument ignores any relevant factors that are essential to it being logically sound.

    Also this argument was not part of my PBP but a separate discussion so it doesn't effect my PBP.

    You essentially ignored my PBP in your last post so I consider all of my responses to your rebuttals to be unchallenged and therefore my PBP stands.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    While I am interested to see the rest of your argument, I will not be responding to it further.
    I have rebutted every point in your rebuttals to my logic chain. If you do not challenge my logic chain further then it stands.

    So I will consider point 8 accepted (since I have rebutted every objection you raised to prior point) and present the rest.

    And again, these points stand until effectively challenged and I will argue on the basis that they stand.

    8. However, if a certain person has not earned lesser access to the market, he should not be denied the same access that others have.
    9. Therefore characteristics of a person that do not justify giving him lesser access to the market cannot be used as a reason to deny him lesser access to the market.
    10. Given that race, religion, and sexual orientation are not characteristics that justifies granting one lesser access to the market, those characteristics cannot be used as a reason to give one lesser access to the market.
    11. A vendor refusing to sell to a certain person denies that person access to a certain part of the market and therefore gives one lesser access to the market.
    12. Given points 10 and 11, a vendor cannot refuse to sell to a person based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation as that would granting them lesser access to the market based on characteristics that do not justify it.





    --------------------


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) I have the right to freely associate.
    2) I offer a person money to do X task. (also called employing)
    3) 1 is not relevant to 2
    4) Thus, employing a person does not effect my right to freely associate.

    Replace 2 with "own a property separate from my home" or "Seek to limit liability to myself and wishing to separate assets" (IE forming an LLC or corporation).
    I won't challenge your PBP at this time (so you can, for the time being at least, consider it accepted). But I don't see how it supports your point 2 (an individual and his business ought to be considered the same).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm fairly dissatisfied that you are not able to accurately re-convey my argument despite an extensive P.B.P., and I'm withdrawing from further debate on the topic for I do not see progress.
    I do not consider that a reasonable complaint. And once you put that argument in a PBP, I actually accepted it. But I rather resent that you are attempting to make it my fault that you are withdrawing from the debate. I consider it a cop-out.

    That said, of course it's your choice to withdraw so feel free to do so.

    But either way, your point 2 is still not supported so your logic chain is rejected.

    We can leave it at that if you want.

    And I ask that in the future, if you are going to withdraw from a debate please let me know at the beginning of a post instead of the end of a post so I know before I start responding if you intend to respond to my post.
    Last edited by mican333; April 10th, 2015 at 07:17 AM.

  4. #144
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    @Isbeld: My answer regarding force in my last response wasn't entirely complete and I can't edit it to clarify what I mean by socially and legally acceptable discrimination and where social force comes in. Here goes -

    1. Gay people are forced to identify their gender in certain business transactions, particularly where their marriage is concerned, on the off-change they get a bigoted business owner who might refuse service at the last minute. "Chris, happens to be man too, at the wedding, I hope that's OK."
    2. Gay people are otherwise forced to hide their sexuality in case they happen to work for a bigoted employer who might fire them for being so.
    3. Gay people are forced to shop around more if they happen to be unlucky enough to go to a bigoted business that refuses to serve them. "I'd love to use them for our wedding too, but I heard that they do not serve at gay weddings"
    4. Gay people who end up being denied service are forced unwillingly to participate in whatever feelings of ritual abuse that bigoted Christians feel when they have denied the devil.
    5. Gay people are forced into humiliating situations of discrimination or inconvenience until they have learned which are gay friendly and which are not.

    Hopefully, these scenarios clarify where a gay person would be forced to transact business in ways that no other group has to endure - that they do so under duress and usually without forewarning. One State senator suggested a sign or a notice of their religiosity so that gay people would be notified and would avoid those businesses but unfortunately that great idea was struck down.
    None of your examples describe how the vendor is using force. Some of your examples are just flat out ludicrous (see your first example). So, no, your examples don't clear anything up. In addition, a vendor refusing someone's business is not equivalent to causing serious harm, even if the person being refused may be embarrassed. So, again, you have failed on both counts. You still have not shown how the vendor is using force and you have not shown how serious harm has been inflicted.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. Likes Squatch347, theophilus liked this post
  6. #145
    Registered User

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

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    None of your examples describe how the vendor is using force. Some of your examples are just flat out ludicrous (see your first example). So, no, your examples don't clear anything up. In addition, a vendor refusing someone's business is not equivalent to causing serious harm, even if the person being refused may be embarrassed. So, again, you have failed on both counts. You still have not shown how the vendor is using force and you have not shown how serious harm has been inflicted.
    You have already conceded that these bigots are being a-holes and that implies that the victims are unwilling participants in this discrimination. They are literally forced into a world of bigotry with few options but to navigate a landline of potential embarrassments.

    If you don't think that state sanctioned bigotry coupled with religious bigotry doesn't constitute serious harm then you need to argue that point a little more strongly; until then my point stands.

    Mostly though you have no real argument - you have already conceded these are bad things that happen and you're arguing they should because otherwise the laws will never end.

    My reasons are sound and supported by the majority of the country and in actual practice. You're just defending religious bigots who pervert religion for political ends.

  7. #146
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    You have already conceded that these bigots are being a-holes and that implies that the victims are unwilling participants in this discrimination. They are literally forced into a world of bigotry with few options but to navigate a landline of potential embarrassments.

    If you don't think that state sanctioned bigotry coupled with religious bigotry doesn't constitute serious harm then you need to argue that point a little more strongly; until then my point stands.

    Mostly though you have no real argument - you have already conceded these are bad things that happen and you're arguing they should because otherwise the laws will never end.

    My reasons are sound and supported by the majority of the country and in actual practice. You're just defending religious bigots who pervert religion for political ends.
    1. Being discriminated against is not the equivalent of having force used against you. So, again, please describe where a vendor is using force. If I come into your home, I have to observe your rules. I may have to take off my shoes. You may have a religious reason for this. Now, coming into your home does not afford you the right physically tear my shoes off of my feet. By entering your home I am, indeed, "forced" to acquiesce to rules based on your beliefs, however I am still protected from you actually using force to compel me to acquiesce. You then make it sound as though the odd baker or florist is the rule and such freedom would create endless instances of bigotry for gay people to navigate through. You have nothing to support this theory of yours. Judging from the few vendors who have been "outted" for taking such a stand, they seem rather like the exception and not the rule.

    2. You like to smuggle in premises... The idea the Indiana law sanctions a specific behavior is a misuse of the word sanction. We are talking about a law, so looking at the legal definition:
    Law. a.a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for obedience.
    b.the penalty or reward.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanction

    Can you please quote me the part of the law which provides a reward for those vendors that refuse to service a gay wedding?

    3. You know it is really poor debating form to tell me I have no real argument when you've devoted pages to rebutting me. Also, it is poor debating form to inaccurately state what has or has not been conceded. I merely conceded that the vendors who would deny serving a gay wedding are aholes. I never agreed that something bad would happen. That's the whole point here. I don't believe anything terrible will happen and if something terrible does happen, then the law would make such an action illegal.

    4. Your reasoning is a lot like the Millennium Falcon, full of smuggled premises. Even your final argument supporting your "sound" reasoning is flawed as it relies on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Just because a position is popular, does not mean it is right.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    Yes, I am defending religious bigots. Why? Because as a true progressive, I believe in protecting speech even when such speech is unpopular. It is the same view that the ACLU took in defending the KKK to march the streets. That is what defines liberty and freedom in this country.

    Freedom is not defined as what we are allowed to do, but in what we allow others to do in order to express themselves.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #147
    Registered User

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

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. Being discriminated against is not the equivalent of having force used against you. So, again, please describe where a vendor is using force. If I come into your home, I have to observe your rules. I may have to take off my shoes. You may have a religious reason for this. Now, coming into your home does not afford you the right physically tear my shoes off of my feet. By entering your home I am, indeed, "forced" to acquiesce to rules based on your beliefs, however I am still protected from you actually using force to compel me to acquiesce.
    It is unnecessary for you to put force in quotation marks - the dictionary adequately covers this non-physical sense:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force
    1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
    2.
    a. ...
    b. ...
    c. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group.
    By being forced (i.e. compelled through pressure of anti-gay bigotry) to declare their sexuality for various services, they are being compelled to behave differently or they would be risk ruining some even.

    You then make it sound as though the odd baker or florist is the rule and such freedom would create endless instances of bigotry for gay people to navigate through. You have nothing to support this theory of yours. Judging from the few vendors who have been "outted" for taking such a stand, they seem rather like the exception and not the rule.
    I have already given you examples - it is called the past where such discrimination used to occur when religious bigots were given free reign to wield their religion. It is also supported in the present by the cases we know about and the thousands of donations to the Pizza place. By removing legal protections, it will just get worse and worse.


    2. You like to smuggle in premises... The idea the Indiana law sanctions a specific behavior is a misuse of the word sanction. We are talking about a law, so looking at the legal definition:
    Law. a.a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for obedience.
    b.the penalty or reward.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanction

    Can you please quote me the part of the law which provides a reward for those vendors that refuse to service a gay wedding?
    Of course there's no reward. What are you talking about?

    3. You know it is really poor debating form to tell me I have no real argument when you've devoted pages to rebutting me. Also, it is poor debating form to inaccurately state what has or has not been conceded.
    I have mainly rebutting your false points against me. Your own specific points to support your case have been dismissed a very long time ago - that because there would be changes in the law back and forth, you suggested that these laws should be passed in the first place:gone. Your second point relies on this being a debate against free speech, whereas it is clearly about acts of discrimination - i.e. NOT speech at all. So, you haven't been able to support your points at all - you're just ignoring my direct rebuttals and repeating yourself. That counts as a win in my book.

    I merely conceded that the vendors who would deny serving a gay wedding are aholes. I never agreed that something bad would happen. That's the whole point here. I don't believe anything terrible will happen and if something terrible does happen, then the law would make such an action illegal.
    Again you miss the point of the debate - it isn't that it would happen so much as it could happen - that's the main reason why the law had to be corrected, if not entirely struck down. Please provide proof that the law would make such "terrible actions" illegal; as far as I can tell, this is a religious freedom bill that allows such bigotry - that's why there's was a big fuss about it.


    4. Your reasoning is a lot like the Millennium Falcon, full of smuggled premises. Even your final argument supporting your "sound" reasoning is flawed as it relies on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Just because a position is popular, does not mean it is right.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
    Of course it is right - it is stopping bad people from being able to do bad things. That's the point of the law, all you are doing is supporting bad people to not only continue to do bad things, but to also remove protections in place (in various city ordinances). You already concede they are doing bad things so I don't know how stopping them isn't 'right'.

    As for being popular, that isn't the argument -- the argument is that democracy worked to provide a result that is different from what you support. If your ideas have zero applicability in the real world then you are wrong.

    Yes, I am defending religious bigots. Why? Because as a true progressive, I believe in protecting speech even when such speech is unpopular. It is the same view that the ACLU took in defending the KKK to march the streets. That is what defines liberty and freedom in this country.
    We've already dealt with this point - this isn't about speech, it is about actions of discrimination! The KKK marching is 100% about free assembly and free speech. Christians being allowed to be bigots are direct actions of discrimination. Why do I have to keep clarifying the difference?

    Freedom is not defined as what we are allowed to do, but in what we allow others to do in order to express themselves.
    Yes, and that freedom stops when discrimination begins. Are you suggesting that we do away with all the protected groups - are you OK with people refusing service to people of different races now?
    Last edited by JimJones8934; April 13th, 2015 at 05:41 PM.

  10. #148
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It is unnecessary for you to put force in quotation marks - the dictionary adequately covers this non-physical sense:[INDENT]By being forced (i.e. compelled through pressure of anti-gay bigotry) to declare their sexuality for various services, they are being compelled to behave differently or they would be risk ruining some even.


    I have already given you examples - it is called the past where such discrimination used to occur when religious bigots were given free reign to wield their religion. It is also supported in the present by the cases we know about and the thousands of donations to the Pizza place. By removing legal protections, it will just get worse and worse.



    Of course there's no reward. What are you talking about?


    I have mainly rebutting your false points against me. Your own specific points to support your case have been dismissed a very long time ago - that because there would be changes in the law back and forth, you suggested that these laws should be passed in the first place:gone. Your second point relies on this being a debate against free speech, whereas it is clearly about acts of discrimination - i.e. NOT speech at all. So, you haven't been able to support your points at all - you're just ignoring my direct rebuttals and repeating yourself. That counts as a win in my book.


    Again you miss the point of the debate - it isn't that it would happen so much as it could happen - that's the main reason why the law had to be corrected, if not entirely struck down. Please provide proof that the law would make such "terrible actions" illegal; as far as I can tell, this is a religious freedom bill that allows such bigotry - that's why there's was a big fuss about it.



    Of course it is right - it is stopping bad people from being able to do bad things. That's the point of the law, all you are doing is supporting bad people to not only continue to do bad things, but to also remove protections in place (in various city ordinances). You already concede they are doing bad things so I don't know how stopping them isn't 'right'.

    As for being popular, that isn't the argument -- the argument is that democracy worked to provide a result that is different from what you support. If your ideas have zero applicability in the real world then you are wrong.


    We've already dealt with this point - this isn't about speech, it is about actions of discrimination! The KKK marching is 100% about free assembly and free speech. Christians being allowed to be bigots are direct actions of discrimination. Why do I have to keep clarifying the difference?


    Yes, and that freedom stops when discrimination begins. Are you suggesting that we do away with all the protected groups - are you OK with people refusing service to people of different races now?
    1. So, your claim is that vendors, by refusing to service to gay weddings are forcing gay people to act or be straight? Please support this claim. Please tell me one gay wedding that was cancelled because a vendor refused to service their wedding or event. In America, one is free to have ideas and to act on those ideas so long as you are not infringing on someone else's freedom. Murder for example. I am not free to go around stabbing other people. Yet, I am free to be a bigot and refuse to cater to gay weddings.
    2. Ahhhh, the past. Ok, but in Indiana today, where gay marriage is legal how does this argument apply? And now you are arguing people shouldn't be allowed to donate money to this pizza place? Your argument has nothing to do with any vendor's right to choose to participate in an event that they find immoral.
    3. So, my points are false??? Then, why are you wasting your time debating against them? Again, please, find a mod and have them give me an infraction for making false points (whatever that means). The idea you have dispelled a single argument I have made is laugh out loud funny. The Supreme Court has ruled that spending money is a form of speech.
    http://www.amendmentgazette.com/how-...orm-of-speech/
    Therefore, your argument that a vendor refusing to service some event is not a form of free speech is contradicted.
    4. First, let me say, someone behaving like an ahole does not make someone a bad person. Claiming someone is a bad person because they have a different moral view than your own is absurd and beyond arguing. I am supporting people in their right to act like aholes when their behavior does not do serious harm. So far you have made appeals to the past and cited that something bad COULD happen, but you've yet to demonstrate something bad that has actually happened.
    5. Considering the SCOTUS disagrees with your view on free speech, and that you support the idea that offensive speech is protected, then you should support the vendors. I guess you like gays more than you like Jews and blacks.
    6. Freedom does not stop when discrimination begins. In general, it is not against the law to discriminate. We discriminate all the time. The law does make restrictions on businesses to prevent certain types of discrimination. Yet even businesses are allowed to discriminate. How does Victoria's Secret get around having to put 90 year old men on their cover? The Indiana law protects vendors from being compelled to service events which they find objectionable. It offers them no protections in discriminating against individual patrons. Would you suggest we force vendors to service KKK meetings and NAMBLA conferences? Should a black vendor be forced to bake a cake for a KKK rally?

    Your final questions are not germane to this debate and serve to try to misdirect so I'll leave them unanswered.

    So, in the interests of highlighting my false points.... let's do a tally.
    1. You have tried to rebut my argument that vendors are not exhibiting force, but you have failed to demonstrate a single instance where a vendor's action has led to some change in behavior.
    2. You have claimed that the Indiana law sanctioned certain behavior but you dropped this point when it was rebutted by an actual definition of the word sanction.
    3. You have claimed the Indiana law has the potential to do harm but your only example is an appeal to the past and disregards current Indiana law which recognizes gay marriage.
    4. You have claimed the Indiana law allows vendors to harm others but this was directly rebutted by the language of the Indiana law which directly addresses discriminatory actions which does harm.
    5. You have claimed vendors are not practicing free speech by refusing to service certain events. Your argument is that their actions do not constitute free speech, but this has been rebutted by an actual SCOTUS decision.
    6. You have made an appeal to popularity which was easily dismissed since such an appeal is nothing more than a logical fallacy which supports nothing.

    But... you just keep on trucking son. You're truly a legend in your own mind. Sheesh! I am done. I cannot, in good conscience, continue to beat this dead horse.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #149
    Registered User

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

    Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    *
    But... you just keep on trucking son.* You're truly a legend in your own mind.* Sheesh!* I am done.* I cannot, in good conscience, continue to beat this dead horse.
    Of course you can't keep going. Your world view cannot be defended as proven by Indiana where it lasted less than a week before being torn to pieces and corrected.

    In fact even Pence, the governor who signed the bill, insisted at the time was that he would not have done so if it did support discrimination. That he finally realized it did and changed the law, proves my point hat discrimination does not belong in modern society.

    Your arguments about how the world 'ought' to be fails in practice as well as "theory" - not that you really had one other than "because lawyers"!

  12. #150
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Of course you can't keep going. Your world view cannot be defended as proven by Indiana where it lasted less than a week before being torn to pieces and corrected.

    In fact even Pence, the governor who signed the bill, insisted at the time was that he would not have done so if it did support discrimination. That he finally realized it did and changed the law, proves my point hat discrimination does not belong in modern society.

    Your arguments about how the world 'ought' to be fails in practice as well as "theory" - not that you really had one other than "because lawyers"!
    Yawwwwwwn. Just keep talking son. You just go on lovin' them there politicians. They'll always save you. Last week would you agree with Pence if he told you the sky was blue? Now, you are all up in his jock because he partially caved in to yipping wanna be progressives like you. Well, let me tell you. I thought Pence was a whore last week, last month and he continues to be one today. So, go ahead, and support your local man-whore, whomever it may be. Good luck with that. I have principles that I'll stick with even when they don't immediately serve my own self-interests. You? You have.... well.... obviously you don't believe in liberal ideals since all it takes for you to shut down free speech is a couple of gay wedding planners stressed over where to buy a cake. You don't believe in individual liberty since at the slightest sign that someone's feelings get hurt, you rip it away. What do you believe in? You claim you don't believe in force.... unless it is to make someone just like you. Hmmm. Sounds a lot like those social conservatives you like to scream about. Sure, they claim to be Christian and you claim to be Atheist, but when it comes to telling people how to behave and live their lives.... you guys are two peas in the same pod.


    Ok, well here's where you are gonna stomp your feet, make some overreaching declaration of your mad debating prowess and just generally embarrass yourself. Feel free, all at ODN are watching... and, like me, probably laughing at you.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #151
    Registered User

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

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Yawwwwwwn. Just keep talking son. You just go on lovin' them there politicians. They'll always save you.
    So you're with Russel Brand? Opt out of the whole political system and then what? Complain and do nothing?

    Last week would you agree with Pence if he told you the sky was blue?
    The sky *is* blue - what's your point?

    Now, you are all up in his jock because he partially caved in to yipping wanna be progressives like you.
    No I'm not - I have pointed out repeatedly that this was a minor concession. The law shouldn't have been passed in the first place.

    Well, let me tell you. I thought Pence was a whore last week, last month and he continues to be one today. So, go ahead, and support your local man-whore, whomever it may be. Good luck with that.
    I still think he's a tool for having passed the law in the first place.

    I have principles that I'll stick with even when they don't immediately serve my own self-interests.
    And so do I though I have to say that my principles actually have some practical use and is morally correct. Yours has little backing in the real world and the best outcome is that bigots are allowed to be discriminatory.

    I don't think this case serves anyone's self interest. I'm neither Christian or gay.

    You? You have.... well.... obviously you don't believe in liberal ideals since all it takes for you to shut down free speech is a couple of gay wedding planners stressed over where to buy a cake.
    Sigh. Discrimination is *not* speech. How hard is that point to absorb!

    You don't believe in individual liberty since at the slightest sign that someone's feelings get hurt, you rip it away.
    Ask any person of color about how state sponsored discrimination affects their feelings. Even better, ask any gay person.

    What do you believe in? You claim you don't believe in force.... unless it is to make someone just like you.
    Yes, and I also believe in forcing people not to kill other people. What's your point?

    Hmmm. Sounds a lot like those social conservatives you like to scream about. Sure, they claim to be Christian and you claim to be Atheist, but when it comes to telling people how to behave and live their lives.... you guys are two peas in the same pod.
    Again, what is your point - that we shouldn't have laws at all!?


    Ok, well here's where you are gonna stomp your feet, make some overreaching declaration of your mad debating prowess and just generally embarrass yourself. Feel free, all at ODN are watching... and, like me, probably laughing at you.
    I'm just trying to clarify your points here. You appear to be against any kind of laws against any kind of discrimination (which ignores history), and you don't believe there is sufficient enough harm done to gays (even though there have been several examples of it in the last couple of years) and you seek to replace it with nothing but letting people be bigots.

    It's a world view reviled by nearly all people such that it was reverted in less than a week of public scrutiny. You continue to pretend it is about religion whereas it is really about personal bigotry dressed up as politics. You literally have no basis for your opinion other than you don't happen to like laws!

    I'm not bragging about my debating prowess here (although thank you for bringing it up). I am more concerned about how poor your position seems to be.

  14. #152
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I'm just trying to clarify your points here. You appear to be against any kind of laws against any kind of discrimination (which ignores history), and you don't believe there is sufficient enough harm done to gays (even though there have been several examples of it in the last couple of years) and you seek to replace it with nothing but letting people be bigots.
    If you actually debated by using your ears and listened to the other side, you'd discontinue the absurd claims and you'd stop creating straw men. There really is no debate when your involved. Arguments are merely brushed aside in favor of your selected talking points. The fact is that you never attempt to clarify what you are told because you hardly read the other person's argument before you put pen to paper (pixels to screen).

    I will provide ONE and only ONE example to demonstrate my point.
    You claimed free speech does not equate to action.
    1. I noted that the SCOTUS disagreed with you since they ruled that spending money is a form of free speech.
    2. I also noted that people marching was protected as free speech.
    3. Instead of addressing my argument, you simply declared discrimination isn't speech.

    Now, if you'd have paid attention, you would have understood that I was refuting your claim that action isn't speech. In other words, your claim is that speech is limited solely to what one says and not how one expresses themselves otherwise. I noted and supported my view that speech has a broader meaning which includes all forms of expression, including how one allocates one's resources. Even further, I didn't just declare something, I supported it with actual facts. My point being, if you force me to allocate my resources in order to serve some cause which I find immoral, then you have denied my own right to freedom of speech and expression. Now, if you feel you understand my argument and that you'd wish to rebut it, then by all means have a go. However, if all you can muster is simply rephrasing your already refuted claims, then just.... I am not interested.
    Last edited by Ibelsd; April 14th, 2015 at 09:10 PM.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. Likes MindTrap028, Squatch347 liked this post
  16. #153
    Registered User

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

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If you actually debated by using your ears and listened to the other side, you'd discontinue the absurd claims and you'd stop creating straw men. There really is no debate when your involved. Arguments are merely brushed aside in favor of your selected talking points. The fact is that you never attempt to clarify what you are told because you hardly read the other person's argument before you put pen to paper (pixels to screen).

    I will provide ONE and only ONE example to demonstrate my point.
    You claimed free speech does not equate to action.
    1. I noted that the SCOTUS disagreed with you since they ruled that spending money is a form of free speech.
    2. I also noted that people marching was protected as free speech.
    3. Instead of addressing my argument, you simply declared discrimination isn't speech.

    Now, if you'd have paid attention, you would have understood that I was refuting your claim that action isn't speech. In other words, your claim is that speech is limited solely to what one says and not how one expresses themselves otherwise. I noted and supported my view that speech has a broader meaning which includes all forms of expression, including how one allocates one's resources. Even further, I didn't just declare something, I supported it with actual facts. My point being, if you force me to allocate my resources in order to serve some cause which I find immoral, then you have denied my own right to freedom of speech and expression. Now, if you feel you understand my argument and that you'd wish to rebut it, then by all means have a go. However, if all you can muster is simply rephrasing your already refuted claims, then just go away. I am not interested.
    Firstly, it does help to focus only on one specific issue at a time.

    Secondly, I did not say "free speech does not equate to action". I said that discriminating against people is not an act of speech - it is a physical action of refusing a non-cooperative person access to a business service solely based upon their sexual orientation.

    In flipping my argument around and expanding its scope you are just arguing against a straw man of your own making. I cannot answer that point since it is not one I made.

    Now my turn: am I correct in saying that your view is that none of these laws against discrimination should exist?

  17. #154
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Firstly, it does help to focus only on one specific issue at a time.
    So then, let's try and stay focused.
    1. We agree that speech can involve action (i.e. a march).
    2. You believe that discrimination is an action, but that it does not qualify as speech.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I said that discriminating against people is not an act of speech
    As such, you are arguing that it should not be protected under the 1st amendment.

    Now, this is important.
    1. SCOTUS has noted that allocating resources (i.e. spending money is a form free speech).
    2. A vendor, in all business transactions, is allocating resources.
    3. How he allocates his resources is a matter of free speech per SCOTUS.
    4. Discrimination, itself, is not a special form of expression and I have provided two examples.
    a. Victoria's Secret catalogs
    b. My dating preferences.
    5. Only in special cases does discrimination demand that 1st amendment freedoms are curbed.
    a. We refer to these often as protected classes.
    i. For a time the government was compelled to protect blacks due to Jim Crow laws and slavery which institutionalized racism.
    ii. This idea of special classes was expanded and the justification of this is debatable. This is what, in essence, we are debating now.
    iii. We cannot exclude something as speech nor protected speech simply because it discriminates.
    iv. Only when serious harm is likely to occur from discrimination should it be excluded as protected speech.
    b. Why is servicing a gay wedding in need of being a protected class?
    i. The Indiana law specifically addresses actions which could lead to serious harm.
    ii. If serious harm could be done to the gay community due to some vendor or some group of vendors then the Indiana law would have the power to remedy it.
    iii. Therefore, there is no reason to pre-emptively forbid any particular vendor's behavior even if such behavior is discriminatory.


    So, I have laid out the arguments very simply so you, hopefully, may carefully read them and respond to them. With any luck you'll refrain from making a knee-jerk reaction to a rebuttal and take some time to understand the arguments posted in front of you. I have read and responded to your claims as you have written them. I expect the same in return. Hopefully, item 5.a.i and 5.a.ii answer your question regarding whether I believe discrimination laws are ever needed.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  19. #155
    Registered User

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

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So then, let's try and stay focused.
    1. We agree that speech can involve action (i.e. a march).
    2. You believe that discrimination is an action, but that it does not qualify as speech.

    As such, you are arguing that it should not be protected under the 1st amendment.
    Yes, a march is an action - hence the KKK can do so as can the WBC for their anti-gay protests. However, discrimination is not the same kind of action, much in the same way that Hate Speech is not protected speech. Neither is pornography or libel. Not all speech is protected and neither should all actions.

    Now, this is important.
    1. SCOTUS has noted that allocating resources (i.e. spending money is a form free speech).
    2. A vendor, in all business transactions, is allocating resources.
    3. How he allocates his resources is a matter of free speech per SCOTUS.
    4. Discrimination, itself, is not a special form of expression and I have provided two examples.
    a. Victoria's Secret catalogs
    b. My dating preferences.
    5. Only in special cases does discrimination demand that 1st amendment freedoms are curbed.
    a. We refer to these often as protected classes.
    i. For a time the government was compelled to protect blacks due to Jim Crow laws and slavery which institutionalized racism.
    ii. This idea of special classes was expanded and the justification of this is debatable. This is what, in essence, we are debating now.
    iii. We cannot exclude something as speech nor protected speech simply because it discriminates.
    iv. Only when serious harm is likely to occur from discrimination should it be excluded as protected speech.
    b. Why is servicing a gay wedding in need of being a protected class?
    i. The Indiana law specifically addresses actions which could lead to serious harm.
    ii. If serious harm could be done to the gay community due to some vendor or some group of vendors then the Indiana law would have the power to remedy it.
    iii. Therefore, there is no reason to pre-emptively forbid any particular vendor's behavior even if such behavior is discriminatory.
    The logic chain helps here but I'll need more detail before I can respond. Define serious harm - you've been asked this before. You really need to provide this missing link. Secondly, you need to cite those parts of the Indiana law to support 5.b.ii.


    So, I have laid out the arguments very simply so you, hopefully, may carefully read them and respond to them. With any luck you'll refrain from making a knee-jerk reaction to a rebuttal and take some time to understand the arguments posted in front of you. I have read and responded to your claims as you have written them. I expect the same in return. Hopefully, item 5.a.i and 5.a.ii answer your question regarding whether I believe discrimination laws are ever needed.
    So I take it then that you support that the laws forbidding discrimination against race and the other protected classes are OK with you? Or are you arguing how the law is working?

  20. #156
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Yes, a march is an action - hence the KKK can do so as can the WBC for their anti-gay protests. However, discrimination is not the same kind of action, much in the same way that Hate Speech is not protected speech. Neither is pornography or libel. Not all speech is protected and neither should all actions.


    The logic chain helps here but I'll need more detail before I can respond. Define serious harm - you've been asked this before. You really need to provide this missing link. Secondly, you need to cite those parts of the Indiana law to support 5.b.ii.



    So I take it then that you support that the laws forbidding discrimination against race and the other protected classes are OK with you? Or are you arguing how the law is working?
    Does this mean you are conceding that just because a behavior is discriminatory, that it isn't automatically denied free speech protection?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  21. #157
    Registered User

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

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Does this mean you are conceding that just because a behavior is discriminatory, that it isn't automatically denied free speech protection?
    I haven't conceded a single thing. I am asking questions to clarify your position and your argument.

    And these are questions that have been asked repeatedly. Please clarify what you mean by "serious harm". Please also state from the statute to support your case.

    You appear to have been dodging the requirement to support your position all along. Consider these as formal challenges. Support or withdraw your statements.

  22. #158
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I haven't conceded a single thing. I am asking questions to clarify your position and your argument.

    And these are questions that have been asked repeatedly. Please clarify what you mean by "serious harm". Please also state from the statute to support your case.

    You appear to have been dodging the requirement to support your position all along. Consider these as formal challenges. Support or withdraw your statements.
    You're asking questions that are either irrelevant to the argument (i.e. whether I support all laws regarding discrimination) or which don't need to be answered at present. I already, by the way, linked to, and I think quoted, the section of the law about harm. I don't need to do this again and you have not questioned this previously.

    It is pointless to continue unless you concede that just because something is discriminatory does not mean it is automatically excluded from 1st amendment protection. So, do you or do you not agree with this?

    Here is the germane text of the bill
    "As signed into law, Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion...[unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.""
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_SB_101

    So, government can prevent discriminatory action when it needs to (i.e. to ensure some group is not prevented from getting access to medical services). Hence, if the discriminatory act would result in serious harm, then the government would be allowed to intervene in any court case where this statute is invoked.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  23. #159
    Registered User

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

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You're asking questions that are either irrelevant to the argument (i.e. whether I support all laws regarding discrimination) or which don't need to be answered at present.
    You refer to discrimination laws as the basis of your own argument! It is completely relevant in every way. It is also important to note that you appear to be shifting from your original freedom of religion position and your "because lawyers" argument. Are those irrelevant now too?

    I already, by the way, linked to, and I think quoted, the section of the law about harm. I don't need to do this again and you have not questioned this previously.
    I'm pretty sure that you haven't quoted any text so unless you do, it will be considered an unsupported position. And I have asked for this at least with every post!

    It is pointless to continue unless you concede that just because something is discriminatory does not mean it is automatically excluded from 1st amendment protection. So, do you or do you not agree with this?
    Where have I said that? Again, this is you rewording my position. Please stick to my own words otherwise you're just arguing against yourself.


    Here is the germane text of the bill
    "As signed into law, Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion...[unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.""
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_SB_101

    So, government can prevent discriminatory action when it needs to (i.e. to ensure some group is not prevented from getting access to medical services). Hence, if the discriminatory act would result in serious harm, then the government would be allowed to intervene in any court case where this statute is invoked.
    I don't see the words "serious harm" anywhere! There is no "hence ... " that supports that this is in the bill. I'll have to consider this argument unsupported I think - it is clearly a praise produced solely through your own extrapolations and not in the text - can you perhaps link "government interest" to "serious harm"? Is that what you're doing?

  24. #160
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Indiana's 'Religious Liberty" Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    You refer to discrimination laws as the basis of your own argument! It is completely relevant in every way. It is also important to note that you appear to be shifting from your original freedom of religion position and your "because lawyers" argument. Are those irrelevant now too?


    I'm pretty sure that you haven't quoted any text so unless you do, it will be considered an unsupported position. And I have asked for this at least with every post!


    Where have I said that? Again, this is you rewording my position. Please stick to my own words otherwise you're just arguing against yourself.



    I don't see the words "serious harm" anywhere! There is no "hence ... " that supports that this is in the bill. I'll have to consider this argument unsupported I think - it is clearly a praise produced solely through your own extrapolations and not in the text - can you perhaps link "government interest" to "serious harm"? Is that what you're doing?
    1. My personal opinion on all anti-discrimination laws is not relevant. So, unless you specify a rebuttal or argument, there is nothing more to say about it. I addressed this in my previous post and I have nothing more to add.
    2. Your specific words, and I've quoted this is that discrimination isn't speech. So, I am trying to see if we have gotten beyond this yet. I'll quote it yet again
    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I said that discriminating against people is not an act of speech
    I then gave several examples where discriminatory behavior was protected. I am still awaiting your rebuttal or concession.
    3. I made a specific set of arguments below regarding discrimination and you may choose to rebut them directly or concede my argument. Either way.
    4. The specific language of the bill is not relevant. I'll concede I could not find the language requiring serious harm occurs. Instead, I have found language that indicates that this law may not be applied when the government demonstrates a compelling government interest. This is really six in one and a half dozen in the other. Either way, the government has the ability to overturn a defendant's right to use this law to shield himself from a discrimination suit. If you believe this is not the case, then it is on you to argue it.

    So, we are continually back at the same block. Either you believe discriminatory actions may be protected under the 1st amendment or you don't. So, until you address, this either way, we have nothing at all more to debate.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 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, 07:40 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
  •