Wow. Look at all the people who think it's fine to completely destroy someone's life simply for disagreeing with them, even when that disagreement is based on something which is explicitly protected by the First Amendment.
Live and let live, folks. And part of that means if you are unwelcome at one store, don't be stupid and file a lawsuit. Just go to another store. Find that hard in one state? Move to another state. (I for one moved outside of the US altogether 20 years ago.) Therein lies the point of all this. This is ONE STATE, people. Stop propping up a bloated Fed and give states back some freedom to decide as they choose, even if you yourself don't like it. Stop trying to be an advocate for what YOU think are "crimes against humanity." This is not genocide, folks.
LIVE AND LET LIVE.
You wave libertarian slogans but you don't take their positions.
Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws. A libertarian would argue that there are too many laws, because laws (at any level of government) reduce individual freedom. (Libertarians would also say laws are not necessary to grant freedoms because freedom is a right you have in the absence of law, therefore laws can only take away freedom).
Libertarians (except anarcho-captialists) also do not oppose civil lawsuits to resolve private disputes between individuals.
And if you really believe in "live and let live" as a principle, you wouldn't tell someone to "move to another state" because shouldn't they be able to live and let live in that state?
BTW, I'm not advocating libertarianism here. Just pointing out what I think are broad philosophical inconsistencies in your rant.
That is unconstitutional because the US Constitution does not allow religion to have special rights. Laws must be religious neutral.
Um… Take a good look at the very first topic addressed in the First Amendment.
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Establishment means the creation or selection of an official state religion. Exercise means putting something into practice. In other words, the government cannot have an official religion, nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs. Therefore, laws are required to be written to make sure they do not interfere with religious beliefs and practices. That is a protected "special right".
Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws.
That is enshrined in the Constitution (see below). That was also part of the debate over that Constitution. It's how freedom is protected. States that get too unfree lose citizens and revenues as the result of bad policies, giving a feedback mechanism. If you eliminate that feedback mechanism, there is nothing preventing bad policies from being created and getting worse.
Quote:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I didn't ask him (or her) what gave States the right to make laws. I asked him how giving States more freedom to abolish more individual freedoms was consistent with his (or her) otherwise libertarian-sounding rant.
It is not an anti-gay law. That is misinformation.
It is a law for freedom of association. You cannot force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with.
No, it's about discrimination and it is an anti-gay law. You cannot discriminate against people in a place of public accommodation. The courts have found that unconstitutional. That's why we no longer have segregation.
On the other hand, in certain circumstances, people do have the right to choose who they do business with. If I have a retail store, I have to serve everyone, although I can have certain rules like "no shirt, no service". If I do choose to deny anyone service, it can't be because of race, gender or sexual preference. I'm a tech consultant and if I was asked by the American Nazi Party to redesign their website, I would turn them down and I should continue to have the right to do that, but the difference is that my business is not a place of public accommodation.
This law is nothing more than pandering to the ultra-conservative base and it will change (if the Supreme Court doesn't rule it unconstitutional first). Large businesses and other organizations that have gay members and people who care about discrimination will stop doing business with businesses within the state. And then the large businesses, those who tend to support the Republican party, will demand change and they'll get it. Besides, enough states have passed laws permitting gay marriage that the Supreme Court is probably going to rule it constitutional later this year. Once that happens, there will be far more acceptance. I'm old enough to remember when many considered mixed-race marriages to be a great sin.
I lived in Chicago when the Bulls won their six world championships. We all know Michael Jordan was the key to those championships. Jordan was criticized for not getting involved in the politics of the day. MJ stayed focused on basketball to the benefit of the Chicago Bulls.
As a Apple shareholder who respects and appreciates Tim Cook I wish he would take the same approach. His job is to continue to "win championships" for Apple, not to get distracted by the politics of the day. This Indiana law will not have any impact on Apple unless Cook wants it to do so. Tim, please focus on driving the sale of Apple products and leave the politics to the politicians.
Basic civil rights is not "politics" even though politicians turn it into politics. This isn't about whether a Democrat or a Republican has the best ideas, whether deficits are a good or bad thing or whether we should spend more taxpayer money on cops or education. It's about basic civil rights and treating all people with respect.
If the Nazis came to power in the U.S. and started sending Jews to concentration camps, should Tim Cook ignore that, because it's "politics"? If the Supreme Court ruled that states could override the constitution and a state passed laws restoring segregation and overriding all the federal anti-discrimination laws in housing, etc., should Tim Cook keep quiet and just keep selling computers because it's "politics"?
You wave libertarian slogans but you don't take their positions.
Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws. A libertarian would argue that there are too many laws, because laws (at any level of government) reduce individual freedom. (Libertarians would also say laws are not necessary to grant freedoms because freedom is a right you have in the absence of law, therefore laws can only take away freedom).
Libertarians (except anarcho-captialists) also do not oppose civil lawsuits to resolve private disputes between individuals.
And if you really believe in "live and let live" as a principle, you wouldn't tell someone to "move to another state" because shouldn't they be able to live and let live in that state?
BTW, I'm not advocating libertarianism here. Just pointing out what I think are broad philosophical inconsistencies in your rant.
His position is the GOP pseudo-liberterianism (Rand Paul is the current espouser, you can go on Wikiquote to get the full view of what he thinks). In fact, its using the state to enforce my way of life, and everybody else can just go take a hike somewhere; if you don't have somewhere else to go, well that's tough luck on you...
Here's a Rand Paul quote that expresses EXACTLY this kind of thinking (enforced by the state of course, other quotes are there for the taking...). "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities."
The Quakers, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF are exempt from fighting in the military. To those who believe that religions are a joke, please refer to the founding fathers. Religious beliefs have long been respected in this country. If a religion believes that homosexuality is akin to alcoholism, or other genetically induced, but CONTROLLABLE behavior, then that, to those of that religious belief system, is not the same as disrespecting a black person due to their skin color - something that can not be altered. Indiana is right on this one, Cook is biased to support his own belief system which I understand but do not have to accept any more than I accept alcoholism, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, etc as acceptable behaviors, no matter how 'driven' on is toward them.
You are wrong and the supreme court will show you just how wrong you are (and all courts underneath it too). What makes be sick and can't abide by is people with a screwed up sense of entitlement like you. The fact you compared homosexuality to pedofilia (no consent), necrofilia (desacrating a corpse), polygamy (which is not even talked against in the bible!) discredits everything you just said and puts you on my ignore list. Have fun talking to yourself.
You wave libertarian slogans but you don't take their positions.
Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws. A libertarian would argue that there are too many laws, because laws (at any level of government) reduce individual freedom. (Libertarians would also say laws are not necessary to grant freedoms because freedom is a right you have in the absence of law, therefore laws can only take away freedom).
Libertarians (except anarcho-captialists) also do not oppose civil lawsuits to resolve private disputes between individuals.
And if you really believe in "live and let live" as a principle, you wouldn't tell someone to "move to another state" because shouldn't they be able to live and let live in that state?
BTW, I'm not advocating libertarianism here. Just pointing out what I think are broad philosophical inconsistencies in your rant.
His position is the GOP pseudo-liberterianism (Rand Paul is the current espouser, you can go on Wikiquote to get the full view of what he thinks). In fact, its using the state to enforce my way of life, and everybody else can just go take a hike somewhere; if you don't have somewhere else to go, well that's tough luck on you...
Here's a Rand Paul quote that expresses EXACTLY this kind of thinking (enforced by the state of course, other quotes are there for the taking...). "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities."
The free-market argument fails catastrophically anyway, by the simple observation that slavery and segregation thrived in a free-market USA before they were outlawed. Segregation was not ended by blacks taking their business elsewhere.
Contrary to what Tim Cook imagines, this is not an anti-gay law. It is merely a state-level version of the federal 'Religious
Freedom Restoration Act', RFRA, which was introduced by Chuck Schumer, passed almost unanimously by the U.S. House and Senate, and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
So if Tim is so scared that anything that serves to defend people's right to religious freedom, and of course take peyote, is nothing more than a ruse to deny gay people their place at the lunch counter, perhaps he should take it up with Chuck, Bill, and practically the entire U.S. congress.
If some business were to start posting signs saying "No Gays Served Here", first they'd be running afoul of the law, and second they'd find themselves out of business right quick, especially in today's social climate.
What are some of you guys going to do knowing that your beloved Apple products are engineered and supported by talented people of many races and different sexual orientations? How do you live with yourself knowing that you support and have financial stake in an inclusive organization whose CEO speak against social injustice? You may want to follow JDW and Benjamin Frost's advice and dump your AAPL stock and get rid of your Apple gadgets and buy Samsung...oh wait...
The free-market argument fails catastrophically anyway, by the simple observation that slavery and segregation thrived in a free-market USA before they were outlawed. Segregation was not ended by blacks taking their business elsewhere.
While I don't support the position that the "free market" should decide this for themselves, lawful segregation was indeed in part ended by blacks taking their business elsewhere. The Montgomery Bus Boycott (which also included not shopping in businesses, such as the local "5&10" which didn't permit blacks to eat at lunch counters), forced the city to end most segregation because of the economic impact.
The main factor that ended apartheid in South Africa was U.S. pension funds, especially those controlled by unions, pulling their investments out of South Africa.
The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, worship, the press, and association. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement that any business or person serve another unwillingly. In fact, the 13th Amendment specifically abolished involuntary servitude.
Yes, discrimination is a bad thing. But the Constitution does not protect you from discrimination by anyone except the government.
People do need food, shelter, clothing and other necessities of life. They need a place to work. Arguably the public interest is served by protecting people from discrimination in these areas on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation, and so forth. But what public interest is served by forcing a photographer, for example, to give up her right to freedom of expression in order to force her to photograph a wedding that she does not agree with? Why should she be forced at the point of a gun, literally, to say something she does not believe? Are there not enough bakers in the world that we need to force people to make wedding cakes against their will? I think there is a problem here -- and the uncompromising "take no prisoners" attitude of some LGBT rights advocates is likely to trigger a violent backlash.
Remember, Catholics are human beings, too. They do not deserve to be mistreated just because you disagree with them.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">You can invite who you want and stop whoever you want coming to your house or rented accommodation, but open a business with a licence to trade and any claimed-right to restrict who buys from you is non-existent, or it should be. </span> The alternative would quickly descend into absurdity after absurdity.
Also, as an owner of a cake shop, no one has the right to demand that you supply them with a cake design of THEIR choice. But any cake you do make for general purchase should be available to anyone to buy.
What makes you think that the government, that "knows what's best" would stop at private businesses? Did you know there are still laws in some states making anal sex illegal? Forcing a baker to support a gay wedding is no different - the government should only police crimes like theft, fraud, violence - anything that infringes the rights of others. It is morally abhorrent and unconstitutional for the government to impose a system of beliefs and preferences on private individuals.
What's absurd is thinking we need laws to force people to associate with other people, whether through trade or in our personal lives, or force them to make certain types of cupcakes for certain people. As soon as you say the government can compel people to act in certain ways, it's not going to stop.
The Quakers, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF are exempt from fighting in the military. To those who believe that religions are a joke, please refer to the founding fathers. Religious beliefs have long been respected in this country. If a religion believes that homosexuality is akin to alcoholism, or other genetically induced, but CONTROLLABLE behavior, then that, to those of that religious belief system, is not the same as disrespecting a black person due to their skin color - something that can not be altered. Indiana is right on this one, Cook is biased to support his own belief system which I understand but do not have to accept any more than I accept alcoholism, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, etc as acceptable behaviors, no matter how 'driven' on is toward them.
Then don't marry someone of your own gender. Notbthat terribly difficult. Public accommodation provided by public businesses are required to serve all the public, for the moment Indiana IS an exception. Wonder if that will extend to exempting people who execute Sabbath violators? #SundayBrunchJustGotDangerous And, no, I do not think religion is a joke, forcing religion on others is. Even though mandatory fish on Fridays would be a healthy diet change.
Rules for within religious groups (imposed upong freely "associating" members) are a separate thing from imposing those same rules on citizens who are not part of the group. And when operating a public business you're not in church, synagogue, mosque or grove. Public.
The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, worship, the press, and association. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement that any business or person serve another unwillingly. In fact, the 13th Amendment specifically abolished involuntary servitude.
Yes, discrimination is a bad thing. But the Constitution does not protect you from discrimination by anyone except the government.
People do need food, shelter, clothing and other necessities of life. They need a place to work. Arguably the public interest is served by protecting people from discrimination in these areas on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation, and so forth. But what public interest is served by forcing a photographer, for example, to give up her right to freedom of expression in order to force her to photograph a wedding that she does not agree with? Why should she be forced at the point of a gun, literally, to say something she does not believe? Are there not enough bakers in the world that we need to force people to make wedding cakes against their will? I think there is a problem here -- and the uncompromising "take no prisoners" attitude of some LGBT rights advocates is likely to trigger a violent backlash.
Remember, Catholics are human beings, too. They do not deserve to be mistreated just because you disagree with them.
Providing a commercial service is not "speech", it is commerce, and fully within the Constitional boundaries for government to regulate. And attempting to equate requiring public accommodation to slavery is extremely abhorrent and rather revealing.
Business owners rights? Like a white and black person water fountain in the store? Or no Black people allowed in the store? Some of you Americans have not evolved in the slightest.
Some of us Americans have spent a lot of energy DEvolving greatly.
Marshall McLuhan predicted the retreat into tribalism as a consequence of the world "imploding" into a Global Village. Part of the retreat is into fundamentalism and antisocial cocooning. That's what we see in this thread. Reactions against cultural evolution. Of course we'll see it happening first in states like Indiana and Arkansas. Mississippi and Alabama.
Comments
Wow. Look at all the people who think it's fine to completely destroy someone's life simply for disagreeing with them, even when that disagreement is based on something which is explicitly protected by the First Amendment.
So much for "tolerance".
Live and let live, folks. And part of that means if you are unwelcome at one store, don't be stupid and file a lawsuit. Just go to another store. Find that hard in one state? Move to another state. (I for one moved outside of the US altogether 20 years ago.) Therein lies the point of all this. This is ONE STATE, people. Stop propping up a bloated Fed and give states back some freedom to decide as they choose, even if you yourself don't like it. Stop trying to be an advocate for what YOU think are "crimes against humanity." This is not genocide, folks.
LIVE AND LET LIVE.
You wave libertarian slogans but you don't take their positions.
Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws. A libertarian would argue that there are too many laws, because laws (at any level of government) reduce individual freedom. (Libertarians would also say laws are not necessary to grant freedoms because freedom is a right you have in the absence of law, therefore laws can only take away freedom).
Libertarians (except anarcho-captialists) also do not oppose civil lawsuits to resolve private disputes between individuals.
And if you really believe in "live and let live" as a principle, you wouldn't tell someone to "move to another state" because shouldn't they be able to live and let live in that state?
BTW, I'm not advocating libertarianism here. Just pointing out what I think are broad philosophical inconsistencies in your rant.
That is unconstitutional because the US Constitution does not allow religion to have special rights. Laws must be religious neutral.
Um… Take a good look at the very first topic addressed in the First Amendment.
Establishment means the creation or selection of an official state religion. Exercise means putting something into practice. In other words, the government cannot have an official religion, nor can it prevent anyone from believing or acting on religious beliefs. Therefore, laws are required to be written to make sure they do not interfere with religious beliefs and practices. That is a protected "special right".
Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws.
That is enshrined in the Constitution (see below). That was also part of the debate over that Constitution. It's how freedom is protected. States that get too unfree lose citizens and revenues as the result of bad policies, giving a feedback mechanism. If you eliminate that feedback mechanism, there is nothing preventing bad policies from being created and getting worse.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That is enshrined in the Constitution
I didn't ask him (or her) what gave States the right to make laws. I asked him how giving States more freedom to abolish more individual freedoms was consistent with his (or her) otherwise libertarian-sounding rant.
It is not an anti-gay law. That is misinformation.
It is a law for freedom of association. You cannot force people to associate with people they don't want to associate with.
No, it's about discrimination and it is an anti-gay law. You cannot discriminate against people in a place of public accommodation. The courts have found that unconstitutional. That's why we no longer have segregation.
On the other hand, in certain circumstances, people do have the right to choose who they do business with. If I have a retail store, I have to serve everyone, although I can have certain rules like "no shirt, no service". If I do choose to deny anyone service, it can't be because of race, gender or sexual preference. I'm a tech consultant and if I was asked by the American Nazi Party to redesign their website, I would turn them down and I should continue to have the right to do that, but the difference is that my business is not a place of public accommodation.
This law is nothing more than pandering to the ultra-conservative base and it will change (if the Supreme Court doesn't rule it unconstitutional first). Large businesses and other organizations that have gay members and people who care about discrimination will stop doing business with businesses within the state. And then the large businesses, those who tend to support the Republican party, will demand change and they'll get it. Besides, enough states have passed laws permitting gay marriage that the Supreme Court is probably going to rule it constitutional later this year. Once that happens, there will be far more acceptance. I'm old enough to remember when many considered mixed-race marriages to be a great sin.
I lived in Chicago when the Bulls won their six world championships. We all know Michael Jordan was the key to those championships. Jordan was criticized for not getting involved in the politics of the day. MJ stayed focused on basketball to the benefit of the Chicago Bulls.
As a Apple shareholder who respects and appreciates Tim Cook I wish he would take the same approach. His job is to continue to "win championships" for Apple, not to get distracted by the politics of the day. This Indiana law will not have any impact on Apple unless Cook wants it to do so. Tim, please focus on driving the sale of Apple products and leave the politics to the politicians.
Basic civil rights is not "politics" even though politicians turn it into politics. This isn't about whether a Democrat or a Republican has the best ideas, whether deficits are a good or bad thing or whether we should spend more taxpayer money on cops or education. It's about basic civil rights and treating all people with respect.
If the Nazis came to power in the U.S. and started sending Jews to concentration camps, should Tim Cook ignore that, because it's "politics"? If the Supreme Court ruled that states could override the constitution and a state passed laws restoring segregation and overriding all the federal anti-discrimination laws in housing, etc., should Tim Cook keep quiet and just keep selling computers because it's "politics"?
You wave libertarian slogans but you don't take their positions.
Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws. A libertarian would argue that there are too many laws, because laws (at any level of government) reduce individual freedom. (Libertarians would also say laws are not necessary to grant freedoms because freedom is a right you have in the absence of law, therefore laws can only take away freedom).
Libertarians (except anarcho-captialists) also do not oppose civil lawsuits to resolve private disputes between individuals.
And if you really believe in "live and let live" as a principle, you wouldn't tell someone to "move to another state" because shouldn't they be able to live and let live in that state?
BTW, I'm not advocating libertarianism here. Just pointing out what I think are broad philosophical inconsistencies in your rant.
His position is the GOP pseudo-liberterianism (Rand Paul is the current espouser, you can go on Wikiquote to get the full view of what he thinks). In fact, its using the state to enforce my way of life, and everybody else can just go take a hike somewhere; if you don't have somewhere else to go, well that's tough luck on you...
Here's a Rand Paul quote that expresses EXACTLY this kind of thinking (enforced by the state of course, other quotes are there for the taking...). "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities."
The Quakers, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF are exempt from fighting in the military. To those who believe that religions are a joke, please refer to the founding fathers. Religious beliefs have long been respected in this country. If a religion believes that homosexuality is akin to alcoholism, or other genetically induced, but CONTROLLABLE behavior, then that, to those of that religious belief system, is not the same as disrespecting a black person due to their skin color - something that can not be altered. Indiana is right on this one, Cook is biased to support his own belief system which I understand but do not have to accept any more than I accept alcoholism, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, etc as acceptable behaviors, no matter how 'driven' on is toward them.
You are wrong and the supreme court will show you just how wrong you are (and all courts underneath it too). What makes be sick and can't abide by is people with a screwed up sense of entitlement like you. The fact you compared homosexuality to pedofilia (no consent), necrofilia (desacrating a corpse), polygamy (which is not even talked against in the bible!) discredits everything you just said and puts you on my ignore list. Have fun talking to yourself.
You wave libertarian slogans but you don't take their positions.
Why would you support more State "freedom to decide"? By that, you mean give the State freedom to make more State laws. A libertarian would argue that there are too many laws, because laws (at any level of government) reduce individual freedom. (Libertarians would also say laws are not necessary to grant freedoms because freedom is a right you have in the absence of law, therefore laws can only take away freedom).
Libertarians (except anarcho-captialists) also do not oppose civil lawsuits to resolve private disputes between individuals.
And if you really believe in "live and let live" as a principle, you wouldn't tell someone to "move to another state" because shouldn't they be able to live and let live in that state?
BTW, I'm not advocating libertarianism here. Just pointing out what I think are broad philosophical inconsistencies in your rant.
His position is the GOP pseudo-liberterianism (Rand Paul is the current espouser, you can go on Wikiquote to get the full view of what he thinks). In fact, its using the state to enforce my way of life, and everybody else can just go take a hike somewhere; if you don't have somewhere else to go, well that's tough luck on you...
Here's a Rand Paul quote that expresses EXACTLY this kind of thinking (enforced by the state of course, other quotes are there for the taking...). "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities."
The free-market argument fails catastrophically anyway, by the simple observation that slavery and segregation thrived in a free-market USA before they were outlawed. Segregation was not ended by blacks taking their business elsewhere.
Contrary to what Tim Cook imagines, this is not an anti-gay law. It is merely a state-level version of the federal 'Religious
Freedom Restoration Act', RFRA, which was introduced by Chuck Schumer, passed almost unanimously by the U.S. House and Senate, and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
It does not allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.
So if Tim is so scared that anything that serves to defend people's right to religious freedom, and of course take peyote, is nothing more than a ruse to deny gay people their place at the lunch counter, perhaps he should take it up with Chuck, Bill, and practically the entire U.S. congress.
If some business were to start posting signs saying "No Gays Served Here", first they'd be running afoul of the law, and second they'd find themselves out of business right quick, especially in today's social climate.
What are some of you guys going to do knowing that your beloved Apple products are engineered and supported by talented people of many races and different sexual orientations? How do you live with yourself knowing that you support and have financial stake in an inclusive organization whose CEO speak against social injustice? You may want to follow JDW and Benjamin Frost's advice and dump your AAPL stock and get rid of your Apple gadgets and buy Samsung...oh wait...
liberal black lesbians touched my mac? ewwwwuuu
/s
The free-market argument fails catastrophically anyway, by the simple observation that slavery and segregation thrived in a free-market USA before they were outlawed. Segregation was not ended by blacks taking their business elsewhere.
While I don't support the position that the "free market" should decide this for themselves, lawful segregation was indeed in part ended by blacks taking their business elsewhere. The Montgomery Bus Boycott (which also included not shopping in businesses, such as the local "5&10" which didn't permit blacks to eat at lunch counters), forced the city to end most segregation because of the economic impact.
The main factor that ended apartheid in South Africa was U.S. pension funds, especially those controlled by unions, pulling their investments out of South Africa.
As a native Hoosier, an interesting take on the controversy that's been created by the passage of IN Senate Bill 101.
The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, worship, the press, and association. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement that any business or person serve another unwillingly. In fact, the 13th Amendment specifically abolished involuntary servitude.
Yes, discrimination is a bad thing. But the Constitution does not protect you from discrimination by anyone except the government.
People do need food, shelter, clothing and other necessities of life. They need a place to work. Arguably the public interest is served by protecting people from discrimination in these areas on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation, and so forth. But what public interest is served by forcing a photographer, for example, to give up her right to freedom of expression in order to force her to photograph a wedding that she does not agree with? Why should she be forced at the point of a gun, literally, to say something she does not believe? Are there not enough bakers in the world that we need to force people to make wedding cakes against their will? I think there is a problem here -- and the uncompromising "take no prisoners" attitude of some LGBT rights advocates is likely to trigger a violent backlash.
Remember, Catholics are human beings, too. They do not deserve to be mistreated just because you disagree with them.
What makes you think that the government, that "knows what's best" would stop at private businesses? Did you know there are still laws in some states making anal sex illegal? Forcing a baker to support a gay wedding is no different - the government should only police crimes like theft, fraud, violence - anything that infringes the rights of others. It is morally abhorrent and unconstitutional for the government to impose a system of beliefs and preferences on private individuals.
What's absurd is thinking we need laws to force people to associate with other people, whether through trade or in our personal lives, or force them to make certain types of cupcakes for certain people. As soon as you say the government can compel people to act in certain ways, it's not going to stop.
I accidentally posted this as a new thread instead of a reply to this one. My apologies; old eyes ;-)
As a native Hoosier, an interesting take on the controversy that's been created by the passage of IN Senate Bill 101.
Rules for within religious groups (imposed upong freely "associating" members) are a separate thing from imposing those same rules on citizens who are not part of the group. And when operating a public business you're not in church, synagogue, mosque or grove. Public.
Providing a commercial service is not "speech", it is commerce, and fully within the Constitional boundaries for government to regulate. And attempting to equate requiring public accommodation to slavery is extremely abhorrent and rather revealing.
Some of us Americans have spent a lot of energy DEvolving greatly.
Marshall McLuhan predicted the retreat into tribalism as a consequence of the world "imploding" into a Global Village. Part of the retreat is into fundamentalism and antisocial cocooning. That's what we see in this thread. Reactions against cultural evolution. Of course we'll see it happening first in states like Indiana and Arkansas. Mississippi and Alabama.