Businesses banning AZ legislators for their anti-homosexual stance

[Bolas 5]

Yep exactly, we should never update what was done to resolve an issue in the past. There are never less extreme options, people's attitudes don't change.

Hey, dropping atom bombs on Japan ended the war, right? We should just do that to get out of Afghanistan.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Bolas

Yep exactly, we should never update what was done to resolve an issue in the past. There are never less extreme options, people's attitudes don't change.

Hey, dropping atom bombs on Japan ended the war, right? We should just do that to get out of Afghanistan.

And your updated model includes the legalization of discrimination?

[Bolas 5]

Do you really think allowing private businesses to choose who they do business with the above stated economic disincentives would reverse all civil rights progress?

Look what happened to that Oregon bakery. They were driven out of business not by the government, but by activism and boycotts.

The public and the market at large is not going to stand for a discriminatory business. Hence no need for a law banning it.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DanG 1]

Quote

The public and the market at large is not going to stand for a discriminatory business. Hence no need for a law banning it.

This thread is about a law specifically allowing discrimination against a certain group, not banning it. How do feel about that?

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

Bolas

The public and the market at large is not going to stand for a discriminatory business. Hence no need for a law banning it.

this really is the point of the matter, isn't it?

Is it true? -

#1 - I think you, me, Davjohns, and the like..... think or hope or want to live our lives thinking that we've evolved to this point as a society.

#2 - The other guys don't think we are there yet. Or, just like to act, or live their lives, as if we are not there yet.

#3 - Or, most of us are there by now, but the laws are in place for the remnant that haven't caught up....(I think is likely the most probable).

#4 - and then the odd balls that just like to make noise and try to control society through law - assholes all and not likely too many of them out there

I don't know who's correct. But I know I like the vision of the #1. It mean we live our lives and trust that others will live their lives and that most people genuinely do want to be decent to each other. The alternative sucks, we don't trust our fellow man.

#1 is the place we have to get to - because real evolution comes from people choosing to do the right thing, not laws that force people to do the right thing (I agree with DavJ on that, forcing the issue likely makes the transition take longer and be more difficult)


I suspect one's perspective comes from their own view of themselves and how they were brought up. Frankly, there's enough difference between people, the #3 up there means some maintenance by law is still necessary - despite my desire for a better world.

ask yourself - self interest in general is a good thing with decent people, not so much for crappy humans. Do you disregard self interest if it would be unfair to others (good people)? Do you think there are those that would also disregard self interest just to be petty or stupid (crappy people)? Do you think there are also people that are short sighted enough not recognize self interest vs short term gratification (just plain ignorant people)?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Bolas,

Quote

They were driven out of business not by the government

It was both: http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/Pages/index.aspx

And they chose to close their business rather than sell to people that they did not agree with. In violation of the laws of the State of Oregon.

JerryBaumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

We're not there yet. We really aren't. It's a lot better than it was in the past, but we still have a long way to go.

I wish it was otherwise, but I see it on an almost daily basis.
Both in the real world and on the internet.

Just look at all the "Muslims Are Bad" and "Blacks Are Bad" threads right here. Sure, it's the same couple of people over and over, but it's here.
And there are more people that feel that way, but are too ashamed or afraid to post that publicly.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Amazon 7]

wolfriverjoe

We're not there yet. We really aren't. It's a lot better than it was in the past, but we still have a long way to go.

I wish it was otherwise, but I see it on an almost daily basis.
Both in the real world and on the internet.

Just look at all the "Muslims Are Bad" and "Blacks Are Bad" threads right here. Sure, it's the same couple of people over and over, but it's here.
And there are more people that feel that way, but are too ashamed or afraid to post that publicly.

Ever get the idea that mebbe.. the Tea Bag Patriots.. are a backlash and a desire to return to good ole boy values of discrimination at will agin them "other" folk... defined as "NOT US".
The level of cognitive dissonance amoung those who discriminate agin them other folk.. when it is they who are absolutely sure they are the "victims" is laughable.

All the good jobs.. and all the good stuff goes to them "other folk" who get the free phones...and them urban welfare queens.... when in point of fact.. they are the ones who are the least likely to ever experience any form of actual discrimination like drivin while white and male.. contrary to their belief.

[davjohns 1]

wolfriverjoe

***
Yes, there were religious groups who claimed blacks didn't have souls, slavery wasn't forbidden in the bible, etc. But a plain reading of religious texts has never presented a case for racial segregation to my knowledge. If you are already slanted that way, you can make a complex argument. That doesn't make it fundamental to the religion. Homosexuality, however, is clearly forbidden in plain language in the Judeo / Christian texts. While I think those were the prejudices of one man and not 'God's law', it is clearly a different issue from racial segregation and the religious legitimacy that was assigned to it in the past. Of course, I read the Christian Bible from a completely different perspective than most, so many religious people might disagree with me. They rarely agree with my views on Christianity anyhow.

The big problem I have with that view (homosexuality is clearly prohibited conduct) is that there's lots of stuff that is clearly and plainly a sin.

Divorce for example.
Do any of these businesses that want to refuse service to gays on "religious grounds" also want to refuse service to divorced people?
Not that I've heard of.

They want to pick and choose which sins they don't like and refuse to do business with only some of them.

That's not refusing service on "religious grounds" that's just plain bigotry.

No argument from me on that point. I've had quite a few conversations with Christians where they got mad with me over this. If they have an issue with homosexuality (Old Testament), then they should have a problem with lots of other things. They often claim OT was trumped by NT. But divorce and remarriage is forbidden in the NT. Doh! They hate that part.

Not enough time to follow up to other comments. Will try later.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rehmwa 2]

Amazon

All the good jobs.. and all the good stuff goes to them "other folk" who get the free phones...and them urban welfare queens.... when in point of fact.. they are the ones who are the least likely to ever experience any form of actual discrimination like drivin while white and male.. contrary to their belief.

I suspect that 99.99% of fiscal conservatives want the government to spend less because they think that's best for the country and best for individuals.

Characterizing the entire group by the remaining minute fraction that want less spending because they don't like the people that get all sorts of benefits (some reasonable, some idiotic like 'cell phones' is really silly, some counter intuitive like corporate welfare). Much like like characterizing all government spending as being purposefully wasteful just for the sake of jealousness of rich people. both are equally narrow minded and petty and simply trolling and lazy here.



maybe it's 90% reasonable and well meaning vs 10% rabid far wingers - or if speakers corner maybe 60/40

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

wolfriverjoe

We're not there yet. We really aren't. It's a lot better than it was in the past, but we still have a long way to go.

I wish it was otherwise, but I see it on an almost daily basis.
Both in the real world and on the internet.

Just look at all the "Muslims Are Bad" and "Blacks Are Bad" threads right here. Sure, it's the same couple of people over and over, but it's here.
And there are more people that feel that way, but are too ashamed or afraid to post that publicly.

Finally someone admits the Civil Rights laws are not without flaws and didn't "fix" racism.

The whole point of this debate is that we don't need to make the same mistakes again.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Bolas

***We're not there yet. We really aren't. It's a lot better than it was in the past, but we still have a long way to go.

I wish it was otherwise, but I see it on an almost daily basis.
Both in the real world and on the internet.

Just look at all the "Muslims Are Bad" and "Blacks Are Bad" threads right here. Sure, it's the same couple of people over and over, but it's here.
And there are more people that feel that way, but are too ashamed or afraid to post that publicly.

Finally someone admits the Civil Rights laws are not without flaws and didn't "fix" racism.

The whole point of this debate is that we don't need to make the same mistakes again.

I didn't realize that was even in question. I don't think there are too many people who think that racism has been "fixed".

Not sure how a law specifically allowing discrimination helps in this "fix".

The whole idea of being nice and decent and not doing business with anybody who isn't nice and decent is wonderfully utopian. However, it is pretty clear to me that the far majority of people behave in what is best for them personally.

So what the clothes get made in brutal conditions by 10 year old children...it is cheap, so it helps my wallet.

That is but one example.

Sometimes the free market principle doesn't work, sometimes it doesn't work fast enough.

[billvon 3,120]

>Finally someone admits the Civil Rights laws are not without flaws and
>didn't "fix" racism.

Nor did the First Amendment "fix" censorship. Still a pretty good amendment though.

>The whole point of this debate is that we don't need to make the same mistakes again.

Agreed; we definitely learn from our mistakes. In retrospect, everything from slavery to Jim Crow laws to segregation was a huge mistake; the Civil Rights Act was one of the first (imperfect) attempts to fix that mistake. Hopefully we improve with time.

[Bolas 5]

Do you feel that if all the anti-discrimination laws were removed society would revert back to pre civil rights era?

Granted, that's not what I'm proposing, just curious.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you feel that if all the anti-discrimination laws were removed society
>would revert back to pre civil rights era?

Not at all. As each generation grows up in an environment with less and less discrimination, the problem fades. That won't reverse just because you end all the anti-discrimination laws. At worst it will fade more slowly.

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>Do you feel that if all the anti-discrimination laws were removed society
>would revert back to pre civil rights era?

Not at all. As each generation grows up in an environment with less and less discrimination, the problem fades. That won't reverse just because you end all the anti-discrimination laws. At worst it will fade more slowly.

So less extreme measures are necessary now to achieve the same results?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Amazon 7]

rehmwa

***All the good jobs.. and all the good stuff goes to them "other folk" who get the free phones...and them urban welfare queens.... when in point of fact.. they are the ones who are the least likely to ever experience any form of actual discrimination like drivin while white and male.. contrary to their belief.

I suspect that 99.99% of fiscal conservatives want the government to spend less because they think that's best for the country and best for individuals.

Characterizing the entire group by the remaining minute fraction that want less spending because they don't like the people that get all sorts of benefits (some reasonable, some idiotic like 'cell phones' is really silly, some counter intuitive like corporate welfare). Much like like characterizing all government spending as being purposefully wasteful just for the sake of jealousness of rich people. both are equally narrow minded and petty and simply trolling and lazy here.



maybe it's 90% reasonable and well meaning vs 10% rabid far wingers - or if speakers corner maybe 60/40

Man am I glad you added that part.. I was gittin all warmed up on that one... based on post loading of silly negro of the day threads.

[Amazon 7]

SkyDekker

******We're not there yet. We really aren't. It's a lot better than it was in the past, but we still have a long way to go.

I wish it was otherwise, but I see it on an almost daily basis.
Both in the real world and on the internet.

Just look at all the "Muslims Are Bad" and "Blacks Are Bad" threads right here. Sure, it's the same couple of people over and over, but it's here.
And there are more people that feel that way, but are too ashamed or afraid to post that publicly.

Finally someone admits the Civil Rights laws are not without flaws and didn't "fix" racism.

The whole point of this debate is that we don't need to make the same mistakes again.

I didn't realize that was even in question. I don't think there are too many people who think that racism has been "fixed".

Not sure how a law specifically allowing discrimination helps in this "fix".

The whole idea of being nice and decent and not doing business with anybody who isn't nice and decent is wonderfully utopian. However, it is pretty clear to me that the far majority of people behave in what is best for them personally.

So what the clothes get made in brutal conditions by 10 year old children...it is cheap, so it helps my wallet.

That is but one example.

Sometimes the free market principle doesn't work, sometimes it doesn't work fast enough.

Well there are those who seem to remember the good old days with all those happy negros.. singin and workin and smilin all the time. Yup....that sure was a different south I remembered from the 1950's and 1960's. Too be honest though it was also a far different than my memories of large northern cities during the troubling times of the late 60's like the martial law we had when MLK was assassinated.

[billvon 3,120]

>So less extreme measures are necessary now to achieve the same results?

Pretty much. We haven't had to send the National Guard to escort black kids to school for a long time.

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>So less extreme measures are necessary now to achieve the same results?

Pretty much. We haven't had to send the National Guard to escort black kids to school for a long time.

Nor have we had to use them for other races/orientations.

Hence the needs for anti-discrimination laws of specific races or orientations are far less.

If we truly want to end discrimination we have to acknowledge and expose it. Laws restricting discrimination by private businesses just drives it underground and further engrained.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,120]

>If we truly want to end discrimination we have to acknowledge and expose it.

That works now partly BECAUSE of those laws. If someone tried to "expose" a lunch counter in 1950 that wouldn't serve blacks, it would have increased their clientele and hence their income, sending a clear message - "if you want to stay in business, bar blacks."

Fortunately that sort of thinking is now mostly gone, and I look forward to the day where we don't need laws to protect minorities/gays from that sort of mistreatment.

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>If we truly want to end discrimination we have to acknowledge and expose it.

That works now partly BECAUSE of those laws. If someone tried to "expose" a lunch counter in 1950 that wouldn't serve blacks, it would have increased their clientele and hence their income, sending a clear message - "if you want to stay in business, bar blacks."

Fortunately that sort of thinking is now mostly gone, and I look forward to the day where we don't need laws to protect minorities/gays from that sort of mistreatment.

And therein lies the problem with these laws. Their focus is not equal treatment for all, but to "protect" one group from another.

Group specific protection laws become reverse discrimination.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,120]

> Their focus is not equal treatment for all, but to "protect" one group from another.

Depends on the law. The Civil Rights Act, for example, simply prohibited discrimination; it did not list which groups to protect. It had the effect, however, of protecting blacks, since they were the group being targeted at that time.

Other laws (like affirmative action statutes) specifically protected blacks during a time when they needed that protection. Fortunately those times are rapidly becoming history.

>Group specific protection laws become reverse discrimination.

Group specific laws to benefit specific races/sexes were ALWAYS reverse discrimination. That's how they worked; they applied the opposite discrimination to try to rectify the pervasive "forward" discrimination.

[Boomerdog 0]

The late historians Will and Ariel Durant put it this way; "What we have fought against, we have become."

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

>Do you feel that if all the anti-discrimination laws were removed society
>would revert back to pre civil rights era?

Not at all. As each generation grows up in an environment with less and less discrimination, the problem fades. That won't reverse just because you end all the anti-discrimination laws. At worst it will fade more slowly.

I think you are wrong on that Bill.

If any and all anti-discrimination laws were instantly repealed, I think we'd take a big step backwards. Not all the way back to the 50s, but definitely back.

The biggest place, IMO, would be housing, with employment a close second.

I have neighbors who are landlords (owner occupied duplexes). They have stated very clearly, and more than once, that they wouldn't rent to "Those People" if they could get away with it.

There have been studies that show that job applicants who have names that are commonly white get a response at a much higher rate than those with commonly black names.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

W'eve come a long way, but there's still a hell of a long way to go.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo