I don't see anything in the wording of the law the applies to only one group of people. These laws are designed to address a company's right to refuse service based on a practice (i.e., collection of behavior by more than one person) that members of the business disagree with. Because most of the most recent examples have involved individual that identify as LGBT, the first reaction is to claim "bias" and "this harkens back to Jim Crow laws." So, to help clarify the question being addressed by legislation like this, I try to find as benign example as I can: Should a business be legally able to refuse to provide a cake for a dog's birthday? NOTE: I am not comparing any human to a dog, I am simply getting rid of the "emotionally charged" portions that cloud the issue at hand - should a business be able to refuse service for a practice (i.e., collection of behavior by more than one person) the members of that business disagree with.
I agree that rights are inalienable that are not granted by government or business. So, how is a business refusing to do business with someone (for whatever reason, being a Jew, black, Mormon, gay, straight (yes there are cases of gay owned business refusing to make cakes celebrating "traditional marriage", etc) infringing on these rights? Just what right is being infringed, please? (not which law, but which inalienable "God given" right)?
a business refusing to sell hamburgers to a black man for no other reason than his being black is the denial of equal treatment based on race, which violates the inalienable right of equal treatment based on race that all US citizens inherit merely by existing. it is inalienable -- which, by definition, means the business cannot infringe on that right to equal treatment. i mean sure they can do it, but then they can be found in violation of the US constitution. this has already happened, about 50 years ago. the case is closed, the principle is understood -- businesses cannot choose to not honor an inalienable right to equal treatment of protected classes, such as race. there is nothing to discuss about that, no other side.
as a libertarian (im guessing) how do you not understand this??
no, legally speaking. your race is a protected class, and you have the right to equality of treatment based on race as a protected class. it is an inalienable right, which simply & must exist -- it is not open for consideration, it is a human right that is simply *recognized* by our government. thus a business cannot refuse equal treatment based on race because that right isnt open for debate -- it is inalienable. that means it's a "natural law" and cannot be taken away, as you propose, by the shop keeper.
if you dont understand, like, or promote this idea, you are the one at odds w/ our nation. you need to live in another nation, one where rights are granted to you and honored at will.
The modern idea that any right you want can be imposed on others, which is what you are advocating, is at odds with the US and its history and founding. The idea that the Indiana law is in reaction to is foreign to the USA history and legal reasoning except in the most recent of times.
Yup. Chadbag has been exposed. He is trying to hide his disgusting belief system behind the wall of Freedom
I'm not sure that's completely fair. Look at it this way, if a person is prejudiced against another person for any reason (the reason may be rational or irrational) a law cannot force that person to be any less prejudiced. Do you agree?
I see plenty of emotionally wrought and irrational arguments against people of all colors and beliefs by people of all colors and opposing beliefs.
You should just stop. You are digging yourself in a bigger and bigger whole.
You should be a better Mormon.
There is a historical component to Mormon church "approved" racism. I recall Mormons at one point believed (perhaps they still do believe) that black people came from mud. Any Mormons here might want to speak to this.
The real point to this is that Tim Cook is a classy guy, and he wants to help people. Whatever any of us think about his job at running Apple, I think we can all agree that he is a good person who believes in the goodness of people in general. And that's a positive thing. I really like Tim Cook.
Sog35, I think you are twisting chadbag's words and quoting him out of context (are at least incompletely).
If I understand what he is saying, it is basically:
(a) I think people should act morally (e.g. don't be a dick just because someone is black, white, jewish, gay, etc.) but
(b) I don't think we should make any laws concerning this because laws force people to do things.
You can disagree with chadbag's statement (b) all you want, but it's clearly inaccurate to accuse him of saying anything to contradict (a)---he hasn't, as far as I can see.
I think statement (b) though is living in a fantasy world, to be honest. As an example, if you extrapolate (b) out, then if a black/jewish person was robbed, beaten up, whatever, I guess the police/medical services etc. don't have to have anything to do with that person if they don't want to? Maybe the judge in a case where that person is a defendant can refuse to serve because they don't like it? Hospitals can refuse to treat?
I think the issue is that chadbag sees laws as only ever taking something away, because they force people to do something, and laws never granting rights. An interesting moral position, but in today's world, quite obviously rather impractical.
You can argue as much as you want as to how the world *should* be, but I'm not sure how useful that is given how the world actually is.
You don't have the slightest understanding of how the Constitution works in this country.
Just because you don't like, for example Jews, doesn't mean that you can say to some guy who walks in with a yamulke, "No I won't serve you."
Sorry, but I have a much better understanding of Freedom, the Constitution, and the situation than you do.
A business person SHOULD be able to say to the Jew, no, I won't serve you. He shouldn't, and we would all have the right to protest on public property outside his store or establishment (and I would be there too because I don't believe in that sort of behavior of refusing the service myself), but that business person should have the right. That is true freedom. To recognize people we disagree with and their rights.
I'm not sure that's completely fair. Look at it this way, if a person is prejudiced against another person for any reason (the reason may be rational or irrational) a law cannot force that person to be any less prejudiced. Do you agree?
I see plenty of emotionally wrought and irrational arguments against people of all colors and beliefs by people of all colors and opposing beliefs.
If I shop at your store, and you tell me I cannot shop there because you hate latino people, yet the store is open to the public, on what legal grounds would you be able to restrict my movement other than you don't like me? The law can't force you to like me (agree), but as long as I have legitimate business to conduct at your establishment, then I can be there.
The people who just admit they are gross racists bother me less, somehow.
Anyways, the real point to this is that Tim Cook is a classy guy, and he wants to help people. Whatever any of us think about his job at running Apple, I think we can all agree that he is a good person who believes in the goodness of people in general. And that's a positive thing. I really like Tim Cook.
I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.
The modern idea that any right you want can be imposed on others, which is what you are advocating, is at odds with the US and its history and founding. The idea that the Indiana law is in reaction to is foreign to the USA history and legal reasoning except in the most recent of times.
no, you have it backwards. a right cannot be "imposed on others", a right *exists* in others. protected classes such as race are inalienable to the individual. it is a natural law and must be recognized. the decision of "others" to not recognize and honor equal treatment of a protected class such as race, is to deny the inalienability of said right.
If I shop at your store, and you tell me I cannot shop there because you hate latino people, yet the store is open to the public, on what legal grounds would you be able to restrict my movement other than you don't like me? The law can't force you to like me (agree), but as long as I have legitimate business to conduct at your establishment, then I can be there.
If a law had a large financial penalty attached to it, I'm betting the store owner would simply provide a reason that seemed more "reasonable". I doubt they'd blatantly voice an opinion that could land them in trouble with the law. Laws cannot eliminate discriminatory beliefs.
I personally would refuse to do business with an establishment that openly discriminates against people, but that's me.
If a law had a large financial penalty attached to it, I'm betting the store owner would simply provide a reason that seemed more "reasonable". I doubt they'd blatantly voice an opinion that could land them in trouble with the law. Laws cannot eliminate discriminatory beliefs.
correct, the law is not there to eliminate the discriminatory belief -- it only exists to prevent the behavior which would refuse to recognize the inalienability of the right in question, such as the right to equal treatment based on race as a protected class.
no, you have it backwards. a right cannot be "imposed on others", a right *exists* in others. protected classes such as race are inalienable to the individual. it is a natural law and must be recognized. the decision of "others" to not recognize and honor equal treatment of a protected class such as race, is to deny the inalienability of said right.
you get that you have it all wrong, right?
Rights are inalienable. All people are supposed to be treated equally as described in the Constitution. Special "rights" for individuals of any color or belief, if created by the Federal government, are unconstitutional. Individual rights cannot be taken away, but they can be ignored, trod upon or violated.
Indiana just went a huge step backwards deep into the nineteenth century. The main culprit: "In god we trust". I am asking any religious person in America: please tell me which of the 2700 or so gods mankind has invented during its existence most Americans refer to, and why they ignore all the other 2699 gods. Myself and any religious person are very alike, with one small difference. I believe in one less god than they do.
Comments
I don't see anything in the wording of the law the applies to only one group of people. These laws are designed to address a company's right to refuse service based on a practice (i.e., collection of behavior by more than one person) that members of the business disagree with. Because most of the most recent examples have involved individual that identify as LGBT, the first reaction is to claim "bias" and "this harkens back to Jim Crow laws." So, to help clarify the question being addressed by legislation like this, I try to find as benign example as I can: Should a business be legally able to refuse to provide a cake for a dog's birthday? NOTE: I am not comparing any human to a dog, I am simply getting rid of the "emotionally charged" portions that cloud the issue at hand - should a business be able to refuse service for a practice (i.e., collection of behavior by more than one person) the members of that business disagree with.
I agree that rights are inalienable that are not granted by government or business. So, how is a business refusing to do business with someone (for whatever reason, being a Jew, black, Mormon, gay, straight (yes there are cases of gay owned business refusing to make cakes celebrating "traditional marriage", etc) infringing on these rights? Just what right is being infringed, please? (not which law, but which inalienable "God given" right)?
a business refusing to sell hamburgers to a black man for no other reason than his being black is the denial of equal treatment based on race, which violates the inalienable right of equal treatment based on race that all US citizens inherit merely by existing. it is inalienable -- which, by definition, means the business cannot infringe on that right to equal treatment. i mean sure they can do it, but then they can be found in violation of the US constitution. this has already happened, about 50 years ago. the case is closed, the principle is understood -- businesses cannot choose to not honor an inalienable right to equal treatment of protected classes, such as race. there is nothing to discuss about that, no other side.
as a libertarian (im guessing) how do you not understand this??
no, legally speaking. your race is a protected class, and you have the right to equality of treatment based on race as a protected class. it is an inalienable right, which simply & must exist -- it is not open for consideration, it is a human right that is simply *recognized* by our government. thus a business cannot refuse equal treatment based on race because that right isnt open for debate -- it is inalienable. that means it's a "natural law" and cannot be taken away, as you propose, by the shop keeper.
if you dont understand, like, or promote this idea, you are the one at odds w/ our nation. you need to live in another nation, one where rights are granted to you and honored at will.
The modern idea that any right you want can be imposed on others, which is what you are advocating, is at odds with the US and its history and founding. The idea that the Indiana law is in reaction to is foreign to the USA history and legal reasoning except in the most recent of times.
Yup. Chadbag has been exposed. He is trying to hide his disgusting belief system behind the wall of Freedom
I'm not sure that's completely fair. Look at it this way, if a person is prejudiced against another person for any reason (the reason may be rational or irrational) a law cannot force that person to be any less prejudiced. Do you agree?
I see plenty of emotionally wrought and irrational arguments against people of all colors and beliefs by people of all colors and opposing beliefs.
You should just stop. You are digging yourself in a bigger and bigger whole.
You should be a better Mormon.
There is a historical component to Mormon church "approved" racism. I recall Mormons at one point believed (perhaps they still do believe) that black people came from mud. Any Mormons here might want to speak to this.
Yes. But that does not mean that person with the prejudice can't allow someone to come into their store.
I think if the prejudice is stronger than the desire to make money, a law will not make a difference.
The real point to this is that Tim Cook is a classy guy, and he wants to help people. Whatever any of us think about his job at running Apple, I think we can all agree that he is a good person who believes in the goodness of people in general. And that's a positive thing. I really like Tim Cook.
Sog35, I think you are twisting chadbag's words and quoting him out of context (are at least incompletely).
If I understand what he is saying, it is basically:
(a) I think people should act morally (e.g. don't be a dick just because someone is black, white, jewish, gay, etc.) but
(b) I don't think we should make any laws concerning this because laws force people to do things.
You can disagree with chadbag's statement (b) all you want, but it's clearly inaccurate to accuse him of saying anything to contradict (a)---he hasn't, as far as I can see.
I think statement (b) though is living in a fantasy world, to be honest. As an example, if you extrapolate (b) out, then if a black/jewish person was robbed, beaten up, whatever, I guess the police/medical services etc. don't have to have anything to do with that person if they don't want to? Maybe the judge in a case where that person is a defendant can refuse to serve because they don't like it? Hospitals can refuse to treat?
I think the issue is that chadbag sees laws as only ever taking something away, because they force people to do something, and laws never granting rights. An interesting moral position, but in today's world, quite obviously rather impractical.
You can argue as much as you want as to how the world *should* be, but I'm not sure how useful that is given how the world actually is.
You don't have the slightest understanding of how the Constitution works in this country.
Just because you don't like, for example Jews, doesn't mean that you can say to some guy who walks in with a yamulke, "No I won't serve you."
Sorry, but I have a much better understanding of Freedom, the Constitution, and the situation than you do.
A business person SHOULD be able to say to the Jew, no, I won't serve you. He shouldn't, and we would all have the right to protest on public property outside his store or establishment (and I would be there too because I don't believe in that sort of behavior of refusing the service myself), but that business person should have the right. That is true freedom. To recognize people we disagree with and their rights.
That is not freedom, that is hate.
I'm not sure that's completely fair. Look at it this way, if a person is prejudiced against another person for any reason (the reason may be rational or irrational) a law cannot force that person to be any less prejudiced. Do you agree?
I see plenty of emotionally wrought and irrational arguments against people of all colors and beliefs by people of all colors and opposing beliefs.
If I shop at your store, and you tell me I cannot shop there because you hate latino people, yet the store is open to the public, on what legal grounds would you be able to restrict my movement other than you don't like me? The law can't force you to like me (agree), but as long as I have legitimate business to conduct at your establishment, then I can be there.
the 800 lb. elephant in the room is this:
I'd just like to point out than an 800 lb. elephant is a very small elephant.
Greg.
I'd just like to point out than an 800 lb. elephant is a very small elephant.
Greg.
Oh, oops.
OK, just Bing'ed "elephant" and realized that a normal one weighs something like 15,000 lbs. Oops again.
The people who just admit they are gross racists bother me less, somehow.
Anyways, the real point to this is that Tim Cook is a classy guy, and he wants to help people. Whatever any of us think about his job at running Apple, I think we can all agree that he is a good person who believes in the goodness of people in general. And that's a positive thing. I really like Tim Cook.
I like Cook, but at the risk of being the contrarian here I think he should keep the focus 100% on Apple and on the products. Anything unrelated to Apple is a distraction and not his job to fix. If he wants to be a political activist, he should make that his focus.
The modern idea that any right you want can be imposed on others, which is what you are advocating, is at odds with the US and its history and founding. The idea that the Indiana law is in reaction to is foreign to the USA history and legal reasoning except in the most recent of times.
no, you have it backwards. a right cannot be "imposed on others", a right *exists* in others. protected classes such as race are inalienable to the individual. it is a natural law and must be recognized. the decision of "others" to not recognize and honor equal treatment of a protected class such as race, is to deny the inalienability of said right.
you get that you have it all wrong, right?
If I shop at your store, and you tell me I cannot shop there because you hate latino people, yet the store is open to the public, on what legal grounds would you be able to restrict my movement other than you don't like me? The law can't force you to like me (agree), but as long as I have legitimate business to conduct at your establishment, then I can be there.
If a law had a large financial penalty attached to it, I'm betting the store owner would simply provide a reason that seemed more "reasonable". I doubt they'd blatantly voice an opinion that could land them in trouble with the law. Laws cannot eliminate discriminatory beliefs.
I personally would refuse to do business with an establishment that openly discriminates against people, but that's me.
If a law had a large financial penalty attached to it, I'm betting the store owner would simply provide a reason that seemed more "reasonable". I doubt they'd blatantly voice an opinion that could land them in trouble with the law. Laws cannot eliminate discriminatory beliefs.
correct, the law is not there to eliminate the discriminatory belief -- it only exists to prevent the behavior which would refuse to recognize the inalienability of the right in question, such as the right to equal treatment based on race as a protected class.
no, you have it backwards. a right cannot be "imposed on others", a right *exists* in others. protected classes such as race are inalienable to the individual. it is a natural law and must be recognized. the decision of "others" to not recognize and honor equal treatment of a protected class such as race, is to deny the inalienability of said right.
you get that you have it all wrong, right?
Rights are inalienable. All people are supposed to be treated equally as described in the Constitution. Special "rights" for individuals of any color or belief, if created by the Federal government, are unconstitutional. Individual rights cannot be taken away, but they can be ignored, trod upon or violated.
The main culprit: "In god we trust". I am asking any religious person in America: please tell me which of the 2700 or so gods mankind has invented during its existence most Americans refer to, and why they ignore all the other 2699 gods.
Myself and any religious person are very alike, with one small difference.
I believe in one less god than they do.