Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 23, 2016 19:37:15 GMT -5
I don't want to "punish" or "marginalize" anyone. Not for any thing. What I would like people to do is keep their religion out of their business unless their business IS their religion. This is NOT a religious theocracy, and there are laws against discrimination in the public sector. As I said to Tall, you're either being irrational or malevolent. Only you know which. All I know is that it has to be one of the two. Since you can't even be bothered to read my (admittedly exhaustive) analysis of why your statement above is inconsistent with your worldview in other respects, I guess we'll never know. ETA: Also, overlooking your blatant abuse of the term "theocracy" for the moment, what does a theocracy have to do with the desire to abolish public accommodation laws? We're talking about permitting discrimination against anybody--the religious, the areligious, men, women, people with zits, people that have "I Love Jesus" bumper stickers. Does that strike you as a "theocratic" doctrine? Is there a particular church or ecclesiastical body I'm not aware of that advertises discrimination as a moral imperative and makes no exceptions? The fact that you're throwing loaded, grossly inaccurate terms like "theocracy" around is, as I see it, evidence that you're more on the "I'll teach those churchie would-be-theocrat bastards" side of things than the "sucking air" side of things. But again, it could be that you have absolutely no idea what "theocracy" means nor any idea of what abolishing public accommodation laws has to do with theocracy, and that neither fact matters to you, bringing us back to "irrational". You're a hard read, I'll give you that.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 23, 2016 19:46:32 GMT -5
Do whatever you want.
I could again go into my belief that many people who claim to be Christian...aren't, and are merely claiming the title for their own purposes without a real understanding of what it means, but that is not really relevant here. What is relevant, again, is that nobody's religious freedom rights are at risk. At all. It is a gross misunderstanding of the issue to think that they are.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 23, 2016 20:04:34 GMT -5
.... So they paid the government for a better spot but the government didn't organize things? I'll clarify: In theory, a few merchants banding together to form a guild and hiring some guards for protection is "government". I'm saying that citywide trade can and has taken place with government no more organized than this. No district laws, city laws, state laws, federal laws, international laws are required. ... You did include payments to "the crown" in your original statement which totally undercut your argument but I am glad you you did change "clarify". I would support going back to those Goode Olde Days when government stayed out of the way of people running their own businesses, particularly doing away with businesses filing those pesky incorporation forms.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 23, 2016 20:53:39 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Curves operates as a private social club to which you can only access through membership. Ie. if you are not a member of the private club, you cannot expect service, and as a private club they can deny or approve membership by their own bylaws. Ie. they are NOT open to the public. They are open to members. Members who have applied to and been accepted to a private club... Interesting since certain people tend to be against any sort of private club that does not allow everyone access in it (ie Harvard and other colleges ending Frats/Sororities).
So, I guess private clubs are NOT allowed to decide who gets membership?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 23, 2016 21:08:27 GMT -5
True. If I wished to do so I could probably without really trying come up with several different and legal ways to end up doing exactly what I wished. You almost have to think that anyone stupid enough to get caught up in this is too stupid to be in business in the first place. So your answer to anti religious bigotry is for the religious person to hide his beliefs. Beliefs? No, it's just the one belief. When was the last time you heard of a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a second marriage? Or a divorce party? Odd religion, with just the one belief. "Thou shalt discriminate against the gays"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 21:13:31 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Curves operates as a private social club to which you can only access through membership. Ie. if you are not a member of the private club, you cannot expect service, and as a private club they can deny or approve membership by their own bylaws. Ie. they are NOT open to the public. They are open to members. Members who have applied to and been accepted to a private club... Interesting since certain people tend to be against any sort of private club that does not allow everyone access in it (ie Harvard and other colleges ending Frats/Sororities).
So, I guess private clubs are NOT allowed to decide who gets membership?
Sure they are.... just like private universities can make their own rules.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 21:24:02 GMT -5
I don't want to "punish" or "marginalize" anyone. Not for any thing. What I would like people to do is keep their religion out of their business unless their business IS their religion. This is NOT a religious theocracy, and there are laws against discrimination in the public sector. As I said to Tall, you're either being irrational or malevolent. Only you know which. All I know is that it has to be one of the two. Since you can't even be bothered to read my (admittedly exhaustive) analysis of why your statement above is inconsistent with your worldview in other respects, I guess we'll never know. ETA: Also, overlooking your blatant abuse of the term "theocracy" for the moment, what does a theocracy have to do with the desire to abolish public accommodation laws? We're talking about permitting discrimination against anybody--the religious, the areligious, men, women, people with zits, people that have "I Love Jesus" bumper stickers. Does that strike you as a "theocratic" doctrine? Is there a particular church or ecclesiastical body I'm not aware of that advertises discrimination as a moral imperative and makes no exceptions? The fact that you're throwing loaded, grossly inaccurate terms like "theocracy" around is, as I see it, evidence that you're more on the "I'll teach those churchie would-be-theocrat bastards" side of things than the "sucking air" side of things. But again, it could be that you have absolutely no idea what "theocracy" means nor any idea of what abolishing public accommodation laws has to do with theocracy, and that neither fact matters to you, bringing us back to "irrational". You're a hard read, I'll give you that. Or I'm actually being rational and logical. Two things that are anathematic to most religions. There's nothing "grossly inaccurate" nor "loaded" to using the term "theocracy"... That's what many of the religious want. They want rule of law based on scripture. They want the legally defined right to discriminate because their religion says that they should. The problem with that is... what if the scripture the laws are regulated by aren't scriptures of YOUR (general) religion? What then? One day in the not too distant future, Christians will no longer be the majority in this country. When that day happens would you (general) like the precedent to have already been set that it's hunky-dory to rule based on scripture? What if the new Majority are Muslims that believe in Sharia Law... Hey, if religious backed law was good enough when Christians were in power, then it should be good enough when Muslims come to power... right? (personally I hope the "Majority Religion" becomes Agnostic, not Muslim... but that's just me)
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 23, 2016 21:44:06 GMT -5
So your answer to anti religious bigotry is for the religious person to hide his beliefs. Beliefs? No, it's just the one belief. When was the last time you heard of a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a second marriage? Or a divorce party? Odd religion, with just the one belief. "Thou shalt discriminate against the gays"
This ^ Also if a solider walked into a restaurant and someone was against the war would it be okay to deny them service? Oh the rage that would cause. The rage it would cause if someone was denied service as well for being Christian.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 23, 2016 21:44:55 GMT -5
Some Christians would outcry some more about how Christians are so hated and them being denied service is proof of this but would look past the LGBTQ being denied service.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2016 23:04:23 GMT -5
i disagree with many members on this board when i say this, but i say that if you disagree with a law, go ahead and violate it, and turn yourself in. challenge the legality, and see how that goes for you. if you win, you change the law for yourself and everyone else. bully for you. and bully for us, if we agree with you. Lol! I'd LOVE to see how THAT goes, just sayin' . . . . the job of libertarians is to challenge unjust laws. any self proclaimed libertarian that fails to do so is a LINO.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2016 23:07:33 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Curves operates as a private social club to which you can only access through membership. Ie. if you are not a member of the private club, you cannot expect service, and as a private club they can deny or approve membership by their own bylaws. Ie. they are NOT open to the public. They are open to members. Members who have applied to and been accepted to a private club... you don't have to travel that far..... this board is also by permission only. it has TAC. if you don't abide by them, you are out. there is no 1st amendment here. nobody is going to defend your right to speech, here. you gave it up when you signed on.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 23, 2016 23:08:59 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Curves operates as a private social club to which you can only access through membership. Ie. if you are not a member of the private club, you cannot expect service, and as a private club they can deny or approve membership by their own bylaws. Ie. they are NOT open to the public. They are open to members. Members who have applied to and been accepted to a private club... Interesting since certain people tend to be against any sort of private club that does not allow everyone access in it (ie Harvard and other colleges ending Frats/Sororities).
So, I guess private clubs are NOT allowed to decide who gets membership?
um....of course they are. that is what private clubs are FOR. where did you get the idea that anyone is against that?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 24, 2016 3:30:20 GMT -5
There's nothing "grossly inaccurate" nor "loaded" to using the term "theocracy"... That's what many of the religious want. They want rule of law based on scripture. They want the legally defined right to discriminate because their religion says that they should. What "many of the religious want" is irrelevant to whether we're discussing a theocratic doctrine. Ignoring who 'they' are for the moment, suppose we accept that 'they' want to discriminate because their "religion says that they should". This qualifies as a motivation for valuing the right to discriminate, but not as a justification. Indeed the justification is that everyone, both the religious and areligious, should be free to exercise discriminate judgment in choosing their business associations, including their "public" business associations, in a free society. The right to discriminate is not a religious right. The rationale in this specific case happens to be religious, but this isn't relevant. It's why your "theocracy" argument falls apart. You could just as easily call it "anarchy" because it happens to align with the values of anarchists, but this wouldn't be true either. Finally, for what it's worth, a theocracy is not "rule of law based on scripture". Not only is this not the definition, it belies the fact that a substantial number of the laws, ordinances, and statutes of today originate in scripture. In practice, the desire to establish privileged groups protected by law is more consistent with theocracy. If you're worried about those creeping Islamic ideas, you might want to think twice about throwing away your ability to say to any Muslim who enters your store "I have no desire for your business" subject to your own best judgment. You seem all too eager to jump ship on your laissez faire worldview to have government divest you of that right, which is why I'm questioning your motivations.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 24, 2016 3:40:34 GMT -5
.... I'll clarify: In theory, a few merchants banding together to form a guild and hiring some guards for protection is "government". I'm saying that citywide trade can and has taken place with government no more organized than this. No district laws, city laws, state laws, federal laws, international laws are required. ... You did include payments to "the crown" in your original statement which totally undercut your argument but I am glad you you did change "clarify". I would support going back to those Goode Olde Days when government stayed out of the way of people running their own businesses, particularly doing away with businesses filing those pesky incorporation forms. The crown just cashed the cheques. As for your "incorporation" saw: federal and state anti-discrimination laws apply to any business open to the public, incorporated or otherwise. I've not found a single resource anywhere online that's indicated otherwise. If you know of a such a resource or can provide an example of a business freely discriminating while operating in a public commercial venue, serving "the public", by all means post it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 5:15:53 GMT -5
Beliefs? No, it's just the one belief. When was the last time you heard of a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a second marriage? Or a divorce party? Odd religion, with just the one belief. "Thou shalt discriminate against the gays"
This ^ Also if a solider walked into a restaurant and someone was against the war would it be okay to deny them service? YesOh the rage that would cause. The rage it would cause if someone was denied service as well for being Christian.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 24, 2016 6:56:19 GMT -5
I know this issue really bothers you. I know you view someone being told they can't buy something in a store because their lifestyle is offensive as a 'minor' problem of 'hurt feelings' - but it's more than that. It really isn't. You have to scour the bottom of the philosophical barrel to make it anything more than that. If it was legal for me to claim I can't make wedding cakes for gays because I disapprove of their lifestyle, couldn't someone else claim that they can't allow Hispanics to sit in their café and order food because their religion says Hispanics shouldn't share chairs/plates/utensils with white people? Yes. We're still only looking at inconvenience and hurt feelings. Seriously?
I know you're younger than me, but haven't you seen documentaries or read histories about the South in the 20's and 30's with the 'white's only' water fountains, the 'colored' section of the theaters (upstairs, and in the far back)? Haven't you heard of how hard it was for a black person traveling through the South to find a hotel that would let them stay there, or a restaurant that would let them eat there (except maybe if they came to the back door, and stood on the back stoop to eat, and ate off 'special' plates?)
How is that 'inconvenience and hurt feelings?' To be constantly reminded that you are somehow subhuman and inferior to 'regular people' - and have the legal system shrug and look the other way? Do you really think businesses should be allowed to act this way? That seems malevolent to me....
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 24, 2016 7:06:16 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Curves operates as a private social club to which you can only access through membership. Ie. if you are not a member of the private club, you cannot expect service, and as a private club they can deny or approve membership by their own bylaws. Ie. they are NOT open to the public. They are open to members. Members who have applied to and been accepted to a private club... Interesting since certain people tend to be against any sort of private club that does not allow everyone access in it (ie Harvard and other colleges ending Frats/Sororities).
So, I guess private clubs are NOT allowed to decide who gets membership?
Of course they can. They are private clubs.
We have one downtown - a fancy building with black tinted windows you can't see into. It's a club for the wealthy businessmen to go have lunch or dinner without having to rub elbows with the riff raff. Anyone can apply, but only white males from good families get in. No women, no minorities (except the ones hired to be the cooks and waiters).
Apparently it does a bang up business catering to the very wealthy men who like to stop by and have cocktail in front of the fire before heading home to the trophy wife and the mansion (or who knows, maybe they dress up in My Little Pony outfits and prance around in there - no one really knows what those guys get up to). They've been a profitable establishment for generations. All perfectly legal.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 24, 2016 8:15:15 GMT -5
You did include payments to "the crown" in your original statement which totally undercut your argument but I am glad you you did change "clarify". I would support going back to those Goode Olde Days when government stayed out of the way of people running their own businesses, particularly doing away with businesses filing those pesky incorporation forms. The crown just cashed the cheques. As for your "incorporation" saw: federal and state anti-discrimination laws apply to any business open to the public, incorporated or otherwise. I've not found a single resource anywhere online that's indicated otherwise. If you know of a such a resource or can provide an example of a business freely discriminating while operating in a public commercial venue, serving "the public", by all means post it. I'm just saying if we are going to return to your Goode Olde Days, we need to go all the way. If businesses did better before government got involved, let's get government out. As far as your second issue with my posting: There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? Robert Kennedy I offer a solution which would allow individuals to retain their religious independence while also allowing the general public to give benefit of the use of their power in exchange for people giving up some of that independence.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 24, 2016 9:08:25 GMT -5
It really isn't. You have to scour the bottom of the philosophical barrel to make it anything more than that. Yes. We're still only looking at inconvenience and hurt feelings. Seriously?
I know you're younger than me, but haven't you seen documentaries or read histories about the South in the 20's and 30's with the 'white's only' water fountains, the 'colored' section of the theaters (upstairs, and in the far back)? Haven't you heard of how hard it was for a black person traveling through the South to find a hotel that would let them stay there, or a restaurant that would let them eat there (except maybe if they came to the back door, and stood on the back stoop to eat, and ate off 'special' plates?)
How is that 'inconvenience and hurt feelings?' To be constantly reminded that you are somehow subhuman and inferior to 'regular people' - and have the legal system shrug and look the other way? Do you really think businesses should be allowed to act this way? That seems malevolent to me.... While I abhor the fruits of racism, the problem is fundamentally with the heart and the mind, and public accommodation laws cannot and do not fix it. I'll grant you that the racism of the US South in the 1920's was more than hurt feelings and inconvenience. The phenomenon was pervasive, society-wide, with few exceptions and relatively severe penalties for businesses that made exceptions. Even so, social attitudes slowly changed. Americans' hearts and minds slowly shook off old ideas about the nature of non-whites, without need of accommodation laws sullying the process in vain attempts to convert the unrepentant. When the transition reached the stage where persecuting the unrepentant became socially palatable, politicians brought in laws to canonize the new zeitgeist, but these laws were ostensibly worthless. They were a redundancy and an imposition. A well-meaning but dangerous extension of the powers of federal government. American society circa 2016 is incomparable with 1920 re the pervasiveness of discriminatory attitudes. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were. Accommodation of any protected minority, including blacks, homosexuals, et al. wouldn't so much as register in the public consciousness. Hence not only are PA laws worthless, the scale of the harm they're intended to prevent pales in comparison to the harm caused by the saturated racism of the 1920's. If the laws were voided tomorrow, only a small percentage of businesses would avail themselves of the freedom, and I guarantee you these would be utterly convicted of their principles. Society at large (and special interest groups in particular) would not make it an easy decision to bear. As Richard has opined: "If you make the choice, you bear the consequences," and such is the law of a free society. Standing on principle often requires sacrifice, and when the tire hits the road and the money hits the wallet, bigots have remarkably little tolerance for sacrifice. They'd rather just pee in your cake or lie about being booked up. billisonboard : Your solution seems reasonable to me. But as far as I can tell, nobody on the other side of the argument in this thread would permit those kinds of exceptions.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 24, 2016 9:34:25 GMT -5
Virgil, seriously
You think it was a slow conversion of hearts and minds?
Do you remember seeing pictures of the Southern police with water hoses and attack dogs going after black protesters in the streets?
Do you know how many lynchings and fire bombings took place? Do you remember the little girls that died in the Birmingham church? The freedom riders that got killed? What about Norman Rockwell's portrait of the little black girl walking to school past crowds of jeering whites?
The federal government stepped in and told the South that separate but equal facilities were no longer allowed. Black water fountains, blacks sitting at the back of the bus, blacks not allowed at the library or at the lunch counter were not allowed, and not everyone in the South, but a LOT of the South, rose up in angry mutiny at being forced to integrate.
Would the South have given up their segregated lifestyle if the government stood by and did nothing to require equitable treatment? Why would they? The only way the whites could keep the upper hand was to suppress the black population, especially at the voting box.
NOW, in the new South, hearts and minds have evolved. My DS's generation seems to no longer carry that discrimination against blacks (but there is a new discrimination against Hispanics occurring). DS' HS had a black prom king and white prom queen - and blacks make up only about 2% of the school population - but this has only come on the heels of the violent racial unrest not only in the South but in the whole country during the turmoil of the sixties.
Yes, sometimes, like with the sudden acceptance of gay marriage across many states in the last decade, you get a fairly sudden shift, but often, like for women's suffrage and black suffrage, the government has to step in and mandate equality in the face of condemnation and civil unrest. And, IMHO, that's the proper role of the government, especially one that claims 'all men are created equal.'
We can't just wait around and hope, with the passage of time, hearts and minds will suddenly stop being racist.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 9:46:24 GMT -5
There's some people that would very much to this day still deny african american's service.
I hate to say it but my Uncle from the South would be one of those men. He's also very racist against Hispanics as well. You can't guarantee that "hearts" and "minds"will just change.
If the South hadn't been told they need this to stop it would have taken many more years for slaves to have been removed, it would have taken many more years for "whites only" "blacks only" to stop.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 24, 2016 10:39:39 GMT -5
Seriously?
I know you're younger than me, but haven't you seen documentaries or read histories about the South in the 20's and 30's with the 'white's only' water fountains, the 'colored' section of the theaters (upstairs, and in the far back)? Haven't you heard of how hard it was for a black person traveling through the South to find a hotel that would let them stay there, or a restaurant that would let them eat there (except maybe if they came to the back door, and stood on the back stoop to eat, and ate off 'special' plates?)
How is that 'inconvenience and hurt feelings?' To be constantly reminded that you are somehow subhuman and inferior to 'regular people' - and have the legal system shrug and look the other way? Do you really think businesses should be allowed to act this way? That seems malevolent to me.... While I abhor the fruits of racism, the problem is fundamentally with the heart and the mind, and public accommodation laws cannot and do not fix it. I'll grant you that the racism of the US South in the 1920's was more than hurt feelings and inconvenience. The phenomenon was pervasive, society-wide, with few exceptions and relatively severe penalties for businesses that made exceptions. Even so, social attitudes slowly changed. Americans' hearts and minds slowly shook off old ideas about the nature of non-whites, without need of accommodation laws sullying the process in vain attempts to convert the unrepentant. When the transition reached the stage where persecuting the unrepentant became socially palatable, politicians brought in laws to canonize the new zeitgeist, but these laws were ostensibly worthless. They were a redundancy and an imposition. A well-meaning but dangerous extension of the powers of federal government. American society circa 2016 is incomparable with 1920 re the pervasiveness of discriminatory attitudes. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were. Accommodation of any protected minority, including blacks, homosexuals, et al. wouldn't so much as register in the public consciousness. Hence not only are PA laws worthless, the scale of the harm they're intended to prevent pales in comparison to the harm caused by the saturated racism of the 1920's. If the laws were voided tomorrow, only a small percentage of businesses would avail themselves of the freedom, and I guarantee you these would be utterly convicted of their principles. Society at large (and special interest groups in particular) would not make it an easy decision to bear. As Richard has opined: "If you make the choice, you bear the consequences," and such is the law of a free society. Standing on principle often requires sacrifice, and when the tire hits the road and the money hits the wallet, bigots have remarkably little tolerance for sacrifice. They'd rather just pee in your cake or lie about being booked up. billisonboard : Your solution seems reasonable to me. But as far as I can tell, nobody on the other side of the argument in this thread would permit those kinds of exceptions. i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what public accommodation laws, and all other civil rights and access laws, are supposed to do. the laws are not there to "change minds". they are there fundamentally for one purpose, and that is to give those that have been deprived of liberty the ability to prosecute their claims in court. some people seem to think we live it a post-bigotry society. if so, they have no need to concern themselves with these laws, for they will whither and die in their purpose and intent, along with the slide rule.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 24, 2016 12:01:23 GMT -5
Of course social attitudes will change. If we continue to progress at the historical rate we did with black people it should happen around 2243. Won't bother me because I am not discriminated against, but you go ahead and tell the next nine generations not to worry, that their time will come. I'm sure that will thrill them. Or maybe laws of the last fifty years have helped and we can do better and faster now. Who knows?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 12:05:21 GMT -5
Of course social attitudes will change. If we continue to progress at the historical rate we did with black people it should happen around 2243. Won't bother me because I am not discriminated against, but you go ahead and tell the next nine generations not to worry, that their time will come. I'm sure that will thrill them. Or maybe laws of the last fifty years have helped and we can do better and faster now. Who knows? Laws often follow society. Think how people say television changed wars. Yet few realize television changed race issues. The twenty somethings don't care much about gay. It wasn't laws that changed them it was them and my generation that changed and laws reflect that change.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 12:22:13 GMT -5
Some people don't want to wait until "your generation" all dies to wait to be treated equally.
They'd be old by the time they see change for themselves so they are out their fighting for their rights so they don't have to wait for all the older generation to die off to see change.
But yes, most people 25 and younger all want to see the LGBTQ treated with respect and equal. Most University students support the LGBTQ community. Even those that didn't at first coming into University changes their views.
All the Universities around my state are big into supporting the LGBTQ Community. It's the older generation that tends to want to pass laws against them and the University students stand up to try to fight for the LGBTQ's rights. The people from my high school I notice on FB the one's that went to University all support the LGBTQ and are always posting their support, the few I don't see supporting the LGBTQ and post nasty comments are those that never went to University and stayed in my small white only, christian town and got a job in retail, fast food, or didn't get a job right outta high school.
A lot that come from small towns don't respect the LGBTQ until they're immersed into University, my girlfriend was one of them.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 12:32:25 GMT -5
And I still think you're completely wrong that "society" will eventually let this change.
Society, still some society's in the South would deny Blacks and Hispanics service without these laws intact. I know if my Uncle was allowed to do so he would.
I know some stores would certainly kick out a black person as soon as they saw them enter if allowed to do so.
It's not completely gone and people would still be doing it, and if these laws HAD continued it's probably be so much worse then some of the racism the world faces today.
You think that everyone should be allowed to discriminate and kick people out of places, and that it'll eventually solve itself but it wouldn't, and it won't. And I have a feeling you'd be perfectly content if everything in the world was segregated.
People were lynched. People had their homes burned down. People were kicked out of places, out of towns. People couldn't rent homes. It was so bad some places because people turned down blacks in every single business around town, and don't act like that wouldn't happen to the LGBTQ if they weren't protected in some towns. They'd walk into every single building and not one person would serve them.
EVEN AFTER LAWS were passed people were still mistreated. Laws just provided consequences which were rightfully deserved. But a lot of southern states didn't even enforce the laws until government had to step in. It was a long process. If laws weren't passed and government hadn't stepped in, in the South people would still be lynching people, beating them until their dead, making it impossible for them to live in the south, starting fires.
Government had to step in for this to stop because even when the government stepped in it hadn't meant it stopped. Society wasn't changing as the laws changed. The government had to enforce these laws so people could live in their homes without fear, could go get groceries, could live without getting beat up and nobody getting in trouble for the beating.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on May 24, 2016 12:34:47 GMT -5
Some people don't want to wait until "your generation" all dies to wait to be treated equally.
They'd be old by the time they see change for themselves so they are out their fighting for their rights so they don't have to wait for all the older generation to die off to see change. But yes, most people 25 and younger all want to see the LGBTQ treated with respect and equal. Most University students support the LGBTQ community. Even those that didn't at first coming into University changes their views. All the Universities around my state are big into supporting the LGBTQ Community. It's the older generation that tends to want to pass laws against them and the University students stand up to try to fight for the LGBTQ's rights. The people from my high school I notice on FB the one's that went to University all support the LGBTQ and are always posting their support, the few I don't see supporting the LGBTQ and post nasty comments are those that never went to University and stayed in my small white only, christian town and got a job in retail, fast food, or didn't get a job right outta high school. A lot that come from small towns don't respect the LGBTQ until they're immersed into University, my girlfriend was one of them. [pssst! Kolt! ! I got some baaaad news for you . . . . Virgil is a 30-something ]
ETA: but this is exactly why we cannot wait and we cannot rest in the fight for equality. Knuckle draggers will (almost) always be knuckle draggers. You may not be able to change hearts and minds (and some people don't WANT their hearts and minds changed because of their "sincerely held religious beliefs" - don't EVEN get me started on how discrimination, bigotry, prejudice and shunning are in glaring direct conflict with the teachings of certain cherished religions on this board!) but you CAN change civil laws so that it is required by all to treat everyone in a public arena in an even-handed manner. The knuckle draggers can continue to do in private whatever they want.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 12:39:09 GMT -5
But what do you care? What do you know? You would never be kicked out of anywhere for being a white, straight male. You would never be beat up because you're a white, straight male. You would never have to worry about your home being taken from you because you're a white, straight male.
Of course this doesn't worry you, or bother you, because what happens to blacks, or the lgbtq has no effect on you. While they're being denied service you're getting service.
Even if we were back in time and the blacks were being mistreated it still wouldn't effect you as they were being lynched, and beat up, and killed just for being black because you're a white, straight male.
You're okay with discrimination because you can't be discriminated against for being a white, straight male at least not in public.
Sure everyone can be discriminated against but not to the extent a black person has had to been discriminated for or now the LGBTQ.
You never have to risk not being medically treated, or losing a home, or not being served, or being beat up for being a straight, white male.
Nobody in the United States would ever DARE discriminate against someone for being a white, straight male, nobody has ever said "You're not getting the cake for being a cisgender, white straight male." at any point in the history of the United States.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 12:42:26 GMT -5
Some people don't want to wait until "your generation" all dies to wait to be treated equally.
They'd be old by the time they see change for themselves so they are out their fighting for their rights so they don't have to wait for all the older generation to die off to see change. But yes, most people 25 and younger all want to see the LGBTQ treated with respect and equal. Most University students support the LGBTQ community. Even those that didn't at first coming into University changes their views. All the Universities around my state are big into supporting the LGBTQ Community. It's the older generation that tends to want to pass laws against them and the University students stand up to try to fight for the LGBTQ's rights. The people from my high school I notice on FB the one's that went to University all support the LGBTQ and are always posting their support, the few I don't see supporting the LGBTQ and post nasty comments are those that never went to University and stayed in my small white only, christian town and got a job in retail, fast food, or didn't get a job right outta high school. A lot that come from small towns don't respect the LGBTQ until they're immersed into University, my girlfriend was one of them. [pssst! Kolt! ! I got some baaaad news for you . . . . Virgil is a 30-something ] Yeah I think I knew that but that's also why I said 25 and under and University students. And I do believe it's a lot more rare now to find a 25 year old and under against the LGBTQ then it is to find one that wants them to have rights taken away that others have. They're more accepted by college kids of today's generation, like right now college kids, if that makes sense. And the kids my age I often find against the LGBTQ are the ones that have never went to University and stayed in a small town, keeping their parents views. That's what I meant though... people don't want to wait for the people 30+ to die off until they get their rights.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on May 24, 2016 12:42:52 GMT -5
But what do you care? What do you know? You would never be kicked out of anywhere for being a white, straight male. You would never be beat up because you're a white, straight male. You would never have to worry about your home being taken from you because you're a white, straight male. Of course this doesn't worry you, or bother you, because what happens to blacks, or the lgbtq has no effect on you. While they're being denied service you're getting service. Even if we were back in time and the blacks were being mistreated it still wouldn't effect you as they were being lynched, and beat up, and killed just for being black because you're a white, straight male. You're okay with discrimination because you can't be discriminated against for being a white, straight male at least not in public. Sure everyone can be discriminated against but not to the extent a black person has had to been discriminated for or now the LGBTQ. You never have to risk not being medically treated, or losing a home, or not being served, or being beat up for being a straight, white male. Nobody in the United States would ever DARE discriminate against someone for being a white, straight male, nobody has ever said "You're not getting the cake for being a cisgender, white straight male." at any point in the history of the United States. Exactly. Ignorance is a sad - and sometimes alarming - thing. "It's never happened to me, so why should I care?" is the attitude.
|
|