Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Disgusting certainly, but not at odds with the personal liberties that are supposedly protected equally for all Americans. Don't be surprised if in twenty years it's illegal to criticize the government or spend your own money on something that "society" has deemed "selfish".
It's the old "your rights end where my nose starts". When you advertise to photograph weddings, or you have rooms for rent, or you're hiring to fill a job, and you say "I am judging your life by my religious beliefs and so am punishing you by refusing you what I've said I'll do for everyone", you just hit the nose.
Perhaps an oversimplification - the Presidency is a crappy job, but many people simply aspire to positions of authority, of which this is one of the pinnacles. The best candidate is one who does it from the motivation of civic duty, and such a candidate obviously has to pursue it at some level. Pursuit of the position, for the right reason, should not be an automatic negative.
There's another saying which perfectly applies here: "Power corrupts".
No doubt, but someone has to do it. I think it would be fair to suppose that not everyone is corrupted.
It's the old "your rights end where my nose starts". When you advertise to photograph weddings, or you have rooms for rent, or you're hiring to fill a job, and you say "I am judging your life by my religious beliefs and so am punishing you by refusing you what I've said I'll do for everyone", you just hit the nose.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Disgusting certainly, but not at odds with the personal liberties that are supposedly protected equally for all Americans. Don't be surprised if in twenty years it's illegal to criticize the government or spend your own money on something that "society" has deemed "selfish".
This is wrong, or at least very misleading. Federal law prohibits discrimination in wide range of situations from housing to employment.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
The short answer is yes, owners of public accommodations are required under civil rights laws to extend their services to all. This stuff was settled over fifty years ago. Has it become debatable again? Remarkable. Sad.
The short answer is yes, owners of public accommodations are required under civil rights laws to extend their services to all. This stuff was settled over fifty years ago. Has it become debatable again? Remarkable. Sad.
That's incorrect. As I posted earlier, that is a law that applies to the States, not individuals.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
If there would be additional expense or effort or risk, that would be one thing. If you were asked to perform an action that you normally would not do (like photograph the after-wedding orgy), that would also be reasonable to reject. "My beliefs say that what you do is really really icky so even if you want me to do the exact thing I do for everyone else, I refuse", that's not reasonable. The first are judging the job. The latter is judging the person.
No doubt, but someone has to do it. I think it would be fair to suppose that not everyone is corrupted.
That would be in direct opposition to all of recorded human history.
That's a terribly cynical point of view. I'm sure that there have been uncorrupted leaders in human history, as well as many for whom the corruption was relatively insignificant.
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
That's incorrect. As I posted earlier, that is a law that applies to the States, not individuals.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
Your right to exercise your religion ends where it infringes upon your neighbor's right to practice a different one or none at all. Religious arguments were used in the US decades ago to justify discrimination against black people, and centuries earlier to enslave them. What's the difference between a pizza restaurant denying service to gays and a coffee shop denying service to blacks?
Religious freedom is not the right to impose your religion on others, and belief in a deity is not synonymous with Christianity.
But if you want to bring up the founding fathers, by all means...
George Washington:
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.”
John Adams:
"The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
Thomas Jefferson:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
James Madison:
“During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
Benjamin Franklin:
“The Infinite Father expects or requires no worship or praise from us.”
Thomas Paine:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.”
Brilliant post! Thanks for the quotes. They are very revealing ....
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would give them "plausible deniability"? As I understand it, proving discrimination is very difficult in court.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
There are differences between State and Federal laws.
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would cover them with "plausible deniability"?
I am simply correcting your misrepresentation of the anti-discrimination laws. I am entirely uninterested in theoretical debates about how someone might try to get away with violating the law.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
There are differences between State and Federal laws.
I am simply correcting your misrepresentation of the anti-discrimination laws. I am entirely uninterested in theoretical debates about how someone might try to get away with violating the law.
So if the law is violated and the reasons given provide the "violator" with plausible coverage, you don't really care. Is that accurate?
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would give them "plausible deniability"? As I understand it, proving discrimination is very difficult in court.
They might, but bigots tend to be rather stupid and not at all subtle. So a lot of them will make it very clear about why they are discriminating, and even if they dissemble, they often get caught. Remember, it's a tort, not a criminal offense, so the case must be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. They may get away with it in a single case, but it's the pattern that hangs them (and whistleblowing employees).
Comments
Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Disgusting certainly, but not at odds with the personal liberties that are supposedly protected equally for all Americans. Don't be surprised if in twenty years it's illegal to criticize the government or spend your own money on something that "society" has deemed "selfish".
It's the old "your rights end where my nose starts". When you advertise to photograph weddings, or you have rooms for rent, or you're hiring to fill a job, and you say "I am judging your life by my religious beliefs and so am punishing you by refusing you what I've said I'll do for everyone", you just hit the nose.
Perhaps an oversimplification - the Presidency is a crappy job, but many people simply aspire to positions of authority, of which this is one of the pinnacles. The best candidate is one who does it from the motivation of civic duty, and such a candidate obviously has to pursue it at some level. Pursuit of the position, for the right reason, should not be an automatic negative.
There's another saying which perfectly applies here: "Power corrupts".
No doubt, but someone has to do it. I think it would be fair to suppose that not everyone is corrupted.
It's the old "your rights end where my nose starts". When you advertise to photograph weddings, or you have rooms for rent, or you're hiring to fill a job, and you say "I am judging your life by my religious beliefs and so am punishing you by refusing you what I've said I'll do for everyone", you just hit the nose.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Disgusting certainly, but not at odds with the personal liberties that are supposedly protected equally for all Americans. Don't be surprised if in twenty years it's illegal to criticize the government or spend your own money on something that "society" has deemed "selfish".
This is wrong, or at least very misleading. Federal law prohibits discrimination in wide range of situations from housing to employment.
No doubt, but someone has to do it. I think it would be fair to suppose that not everyone is corrupted.
That would be in direct opposition to all of recorded human history.
This is wrong, or at least very misleading. Federal law prohibits discrimination in wide range of situations from housing to employment.
"Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals..."
The details in this discussion are important.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
The short answer is yes, owners of public accommodations are required under civil rights laws to extend their services to all. This stuff was settled over fifty years ago. Has it become debatable again? Remarkable. Sad.
"Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals..."
The details in this discussion are important.
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
The short answer is yes, owners of public accommodations are required under civil rights laws to extend their services to all. This stuff was settled over fifty years ago. Has it become debatable again? Remarkable. Sad.
That's incorrect. As I posted earlier, that is a law that applies to the States, not individuals.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
If there would be additional expense or effort or risk, that would be one thing. If you were asked to perform an action that you normally would not do (like photograph the after-wedding orgy), that would also be reasonable to reject. "My beliefs say that what you do is really really icky so even if you want me to do the exact thing I do for everyone else, I refuse", that's not reasonable. The first are judging the job. The latter is judging the person.
No doubt, but someone has to do it. I think it would be fair to suppose that not everyone is corrupted.
That would be in direct opposition to all of recorded human history.
That's a terribly cynical point of view. I'm sure that there have been uncorrupted leaders in human history, as well as many for whom the corruption was relatively insignificant.
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
That's incorrect. As I posted earlier, that is a law that applies to the States, not individuals.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
Your right to exercise your religion ends where it infringes upon your neighbor's right to practice a different one or none at all. Religious arguments were used in the US decades ago to justify discrimination against black people, and centuries earlier to enslave them. What's the difference between a pizza restaurant denying service to gays and a coffee shop denying service to blacks?
Religious freedom is not the right to impose your religion on others, and belief in a deity is not synonymous with Christianity.
But if you want to bring up the founding fathers, by all means...
George Washington:
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.”
John Adams:
"The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
Thomas Jefferson:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
James Madison:
“During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; and in both, clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
Benjamin Franklin:
“The Infinite Father expects or requires no worship or praise from us.”
Thomas Paine:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.”
Brilliant post! Thanks for the quotes. They are very revealing ....
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would give them "plausible deniability"? As I understand it, proving discrimination is very difficult in court.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
There are differences between State and Federal laws.
Are you aware of this recent Supreme Court ruling?: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305894694/supreme-court-rules-on-race-based-college-admissions
Do you agree with this ruling?
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would cover them with "plausible deniability"?
I am simply correcting your misrepresentation of the anti-discrimination laws. I am entirely uninterested in theoretical debates about how someone might try to get away with violating the law.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
There are differences between State and Federal laws.
Are you aware of this recent Supreme Court ruling?: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305894694/supreme-court-rules-on-race-based-college-admissions
Do you agree with this ruling?
That ruling upholds a ban on affirmative action - it doesn't permit discrimination. Where were you going with that?
I am simply correcting your misrepresentation of the anti-discrimination laws. I am entirely uninterested in theoretical debates about how someone might try to get away with violating the law.
So if the law is violated and the reasons given provide the "violator" with plausible coverage, you don't really care. Is that accurate?
That ruling upholds a ban on affirmative action - it doesn't permit discrimination. Where were you going with that?
I was under the impression that Affirmative Action was passed as a remedy for discrimination.
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would give them "plausible deniability"? As I understand it, proving discrimination is very difficult in court.
They might, but bigots tend to be rather stupid and not at all subtle. So a lot of them will make it very clear about why they are discriminating, and even if they dissemble, they often get caught. Remember, it's a tort, not a criminal offense, so the case must be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. They may get away with it in a single case, but it's the pattern that hangs them (and whistleblowing employees).