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 12:44:09 GMT -5
[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. psssst! Kolt! again! Some of us are a LOT older than 30 and have equality for all persons on the top of our social justice agendas. Just sayin' . . . |
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311 
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 12:45:35 GMT -5
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. psssst! Kolt! again! Some of us are a LOT older than 30 and have equality for all persons on the top of our social justice agendas. Just sayin' . . . I'm also well aware of that. -_- I just see a lot more hate from people 30+ As it's a lot more easy to find in my experiences someone 30+ discriminating against the LGBTQ than it is for me to find it happen with people 25 and under |
|
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 12:47:11 GMT -5
psssst! Kolt! again! Some of us are a LOT older than 30 and have equality for all persons on the top of our social justice agendas. Just sayin' . . . I'm also well aware of that. -_- I just see a lot more hate from people 30+ As it's a lot more easy to find in my experiences someone 30+ discriminating against the LGBTQ than it is for me to find it happen with people 25 and under Fair enough (sadly ) |
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 12:52:15 GMT -5
I'm also well aware of that. -_- I just see a lot more hate from people 30+ As it's a lot more easy to find in my experiences someone 30+ discriminating against the LGBTQ than it is for me to find it happen with people 25 and under Fair enough (sadly ) Like I was friends with this guy when I was in Texas and I went over to his house and this was when I wasn't passing, and his son was so supportive of me and everything. His dad actually SPIT in my face among so many other hateful things when he brought me over to his house.  I was just like "Whose the parent here?" It doesn't happen where I'm at now, that hateful of things anyways. But sadly, down South I have friends there that are part of the LGBTQ that say stuff like this isn't that uncommon, and quite a few of my transgender friends still in Texas have been beat up simply for being transgender but the funny thing is... it's usually people older than them that they have to try to escape... |
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 24, 2016 12:55:52 GMT -5
I have to say I find it interesting that the stance is it is someone's given right as a Christian to discriminate as they please based on those beliefs and that their rights should be protected. Yet Starbucks removes snowmen and Christmas trees (two things that aren't even Christian) from their holiday cups and everyone loses their minds. Starbucks is waging a "War on Christmas" and "is discriminating against Christ". So it's okay for someone to discriminate against the gay community because it goes against their beliefs. Starbucks does something that is perfectly legal and has every right to do as a business but that is NOT COOL because it's discriminating against people.  You're free not to go to Starbucks, nobody is holding a gun to your head. Go some place that decorates their cups with the approved holiday clipart and shut up. Same with Target saying they are fine with everyone using the same bathrooms. That is their right to decide as a business. The "free market" will decide if their support of the transgender community will impact their bottom line negatively or not. Yet that is NOT COOL because they aren't protecting your rights to go to the bathroom without having to wonder if someone in the stall next to you is transgender. You don't have to shop at Target. There are plenty of big box stores in the world. Go to one that hasn't openly supported the transgender community. Vote with your dollars. Everyone is cool with telling others to shut up and put up with discrimination. .. until they are the ones that think they are being discriminated against. |
|
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 12:56:47 GMT -5
Fair enough (sadly ) Like I was friends with this guy when I was in Texas and I went over to his house and this was when I wasn't passing, and his son was so supportive of me and everything. His dad actually SPIT in my face among so many other hateful things when he brought me over to his house. I was just like "Whose the parent here?" It doesn't happen where I'm at now, that hateful of things anyways. But sadly, down South I have friends there that are part of the LGBTQ that say stuff like this isn't that uncommon, and quite a few of my transgender friends still in Texas have been beat up simply for being transgender but the funny thing is... it's usually people older than them that they have to try to escape... Have you considered a move out here to the beautiful sands of La La Land? We attended the Pride Parade this weekend and it was one gigantic love fest (and just for the record we are 50+ cis male and cis female, married almost 33 years). The energy and the positivity were enthralling - it made me forget about Donald Trump and his ilk, and re-invigorated my faith in humanity (at least until the next nasty thing comes along).
Of course there are awful people everywhere, but there's a LOT more acceptance too, out here, just sayin' . . . .
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 24, 2016 13:00:03 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.  Somebody posted some time ago the difference between the two sides. As I recall it went something like this: Conservatives: "It's never happened to me, so why should I care?" Liberals: "It could happen to someone else, and that's why I care." |
|
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 13:00:24 GMT -5
We can't just wait around and hope, with the passage of time, hearts and minds will suddenly stop being racist. You certainly can, and that's the only way they do. The regression in race relations we're witnessing today is the rotten fruit of misguided social engineering (including PA laws), and all the more proof of this fact. What astonishes me is your belief that public accommodation laws were the reason lynchings, shootings, and pogroms stopped. You've confused cause with effect as greatly as the two can possibly be confused. Perhaps you can explain why an individual who disregards the law so entirely that they're willing to commit murder would in any way respect or be influenced by a law that prevents discrimination? |
|
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 13:05:14 GMT -5
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. It's good that the laws aren't there to change minds, because they don't. In recent years, they've had precisely the opposite effect. As for "giv[ing] those that have been deprived of liberty the ability to prosecute their claims in court", you might say that my liberty ends at the threshold to your bakery. ...Or at least my "must be served" liberty ends there. This division in our thinking is well established. |
|
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 13:52:39 GMT -5
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. It's good that the laws aren't there to change minds, because they don't. In recent years, they've had precisely the opposite effect. As for "giv[ing] those that have been deprived of liberty the ability to prosecute their claims in court", you might say that my liberty ends at the threshold to your bakery. ...Or at least my "must be served" liberty ends there. This division in our thinking is well established. it is fine with me if they have the opposite effect. as i have said before, everyone is responsible for their own feelings. as to your paragraph 2, that is clearly untrue. at least not in Oregon. you might LIKE it to be true. so......... like away. |
|
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 13:56:38 GMT -5
We can't just wait around and hope, with the passage of time, hearts and minds will suddenly stop being racist. You certainly can, and that's the only way they do. The regression in race relations we're witnessing today is the rotten fruit of misguided social engineering (including PA laws), and all the more proof of this fact. What astonishes me is your belief that public accommodation laws were the reason lynchings, shootings, and pogroms stopped. You've confused cause with effect as greatly as the two can possibly be confused. Perhaps you can explain why an individual who disregards the law so entirely that they're willing to commit murder would in any way respect or be influenced by a law that prevents discrimination? the regression in race relations is happening precisely because of the push-back on these laws. once given essential liberty, the electorate is wont to give it up. and again, the law is not designed to "stop discrimination", it is designed to CRIMINALIZE it. i understand what you are saying here- that public lynchings were never legal. that is true (with the exception of law enforcement). so, the overt violence went away, but more subtle racism has persisted since that time. and, i am sure, it will NEVER fully go away. that's something we have to accept, just as we learn to accept evil. that does not mean, however, that it has to be tolerated. quite the contrary. |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 24, 2016 14:11:32 GMT -5
We can't just wait around and hope, with the passage of time, hearts and minds will suddenly stop being racist. You certainly can, and that's the only way they do. The regression in race relations we're witnessing today is the rotten fruit of misguided social engineering (including PA laws), and all the more proof of this fact. What astonishes me is your belief that public accommodation laws were the reason lynchings, shootings, and pogroms stopped. You've confused cause with effect as greatly as the two can possibly be confused. Public accommodation laws were the reason that the lynchings, shootings and fire bombings STARTED. I thought that was self evident in the history books.
The South was content with their segregationist policy, but the federal government came in and started enforcing federal laws about desegregation, and the whites rebelled, causing the blacks to fight back. Race riots ensued. If the feds had left well enough alone, the South would still be like Apartheid South Africa.
The people that committed murder assumed their bad acts would be ignored, like they always had been prior to the push to desegregate the South. You put a white pointy hat on your head, you meet up with your buddies, and go hang you a N----. The law never interfered (in fact, the law was probably right there helping you). Then the feds came in with their stupid ideas about equality and ruined everything, arresting and jailing those good old boys who were just out having some fun.
Now, most people know that overt racial acts won't be tolerated. I'm not saying there aren't any racists, but they usually have the sense to keep that undercover. Sometimes, they don't - a few years back, some drunk good old boys lit a cross on the yard of a house where a woman and her black boyfriend were sleeping. They got picked up by the FBI and are sitting in jail for 20 years for a hate crime. Those idiots serve as an example to other potential idiots that burning crosses on people's yards is not some inconvenient act that causes hurt feelings. THAT'S how you prevent discrimination - enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Not sitting around hoping people's hearts will change.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 24, 2016 14:23:05 GMT -5
psssst! Kolt! again! Some of us are a LOT older than 30 and have equality for all persons on the top of our social justice agendas. Just sayin' . . . I'm also well aware of that. -_- I just see a lot more hate from people 30+ As it's a lot more easy to find in my experiences someone 30+ discriminating against the LGBTQ than it is for me to find it happen with people 25 and under M mom came around in her 70's. She was very anti-gay, but that's because she thought she didn't know any. We finally told her..."Mom! All those people, friends of your daughters, they're not room-mates. They're couples! You've been inviting them to break bread with you on Thanksgiving and Christmas for a decade!" She said "But they seem so nice and normal. Maybe I was wrong." She ended up going to gay weddings and was very gracious about it. |
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 14:59:49 GMT -5
Like I was friends with this guy when I was in Texas and I went over to his house and this was when I wasn't passing, and his son was so supportive of me and everything. His dad actually SPIT in my face among so many other hateful things when he brought me over to his house. I was just like "Whose the parent here?" It doesn't happen where I'm at now, that hateful of things anyways. But sadly, down South I have friends there that are part of the LGBTQ that say stuff like this isn't that uncommon, and quite a few of my transgender friends still in Texas have been beat up simply for being transgender but the funny thing is... it's usually people older than them that they have to try to escape... Have you considered a move out here to the beautiful sands of La La Land? We attended the Pride Parade this weekend and it was one gigantic love fest (and just for the record we are 50+ cis male and cis female, married almost 33 years). The energy and the positivity were enthralling - it made me forget about Donald Trump and his ilk, and re-invigorated my faith in humanity (at least until the next nasty thing comes along).
Of course there are awful people everywhere, but there's a LOT more acceptance too, out here, just sayin' . . . .
I've moved sense then to a more accepting community. Or well, I live in a University town with my girlfriend now and so I don't really have the trouble much anymore. The adults I run into here usually have connections with the University so they're more accepting and then it's a lot of people around my age. Also now that I pass as a cismale, people that don't know me don't know I'm transgender, I don't have any issues just in the public now because they don't look at me as a lesbian, or someone transitioning everyone just assumes I'm a cismale. I play football on a semi-professional team as well and nobody questions a thing so I present myself rather masculine. It's still not super easy to hear about some of my friends in Texas that still have to deal with some of these occurrences. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 17:22:08 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. Umm... no. They actually don't. What the "substantial number" actually do is originate in "best interests of the community". In a lot of cases that MIRRORS scripture... but that doesn't mean it COMES FROM scripture. Case in point: laws against murdering and stealing. Does scripture have tenets against doing those things? Sure it does... BUT... So do the beliefs of the areligious as well as other faiths. And in the limited number of laws and statutes that do come from scripture... they should be removed from the law, if they cannot be reconciled with something non-scriptural. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 17:36:56 GMT -5
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. psssst! Kolt! again! Some of us are a LOT older than 30 and have equality for all persons on the top of our social justice agendas. Just sayin' . . . Yup! |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 24, 2016 17:45:47 GMT -5
You certainly can, and that's the only way they do. The regression in race relations we're witnessing today is the rotten fruit of misguided social engineering (including PA laws), and all the more proof of this fact. What astonishes me is your belief that public accommodation laws were the reason lynchings, shootings, and pogroms stopped. You've confused cause with effect as greatly as the two can possibly be confused. Public accommodation laws were the reason that the lynchings, shootings and fire bombings STARTED. I thought that was self evident in the history books.
The South was content with their segregationist policy, but the federal government came in and started enforcing federal laws about desegregation, and the whites rebelled, causing the blacks to fight back. Race riots ensued. If the feds had left well enough alone, the South would still be like Apartheid South Africa.
The people that committed murder assumed their bad acts would be ignored, like they always had been prior to the push to desegregate the South. You put a white pointy hat on your head, you meet up with your buddies, and go hang you a N----. The law never interfered (in fact, the law was probably right there helping you). Then the feds came in with their stupid ideas about equality and ruined everything, arresting and jailing those good old boys who were just out having some fun.
Now, most people know that overt racial acts won't be tolerated. I'm not saying there aren't any racists, but they usually have the sense to keep that undercover. Sometimes, they don't - a few years back, some drunk good old boys lit a cross on the yard of a house where a woman and her black boyfriend were sleeping. They got picked up by the FBI and are sitting in jail for 20 years for a hate crime. Those idiots serve as an example to other potential idiots that burning crosses on people's yards is not some inconvenient act that causes hurt feelings. THAT'S how you prevent discrimination - enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Not sitting around hoping people's hearts will change.
Just one of many. Byron De La Beckwith |
|
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 17:48:54 GMT -5
You certainly can, and that's the only way they do. The regression in race relations we're witnessing today is the rotten fruit of misguided social engineering (including PA laws), and all the more proof of this fact. What astonishes me is your belief that public accommodation laws were the reason lynchings, shootings, and pogroms stopped. You've confused cause with effect as greatly as the two can possibly be confused. Perhaps you can explain why an individual who disregards the law so entirely that they're willing to commit murder would in any way respect or be influenced by a law that prevents discrimination? the regression in race relations is happening precisely because of the push-back on these laws. once given essential liberty, the electorate is wont to give it up. and again, the law is not designed to "stop discrimination", it is designed to CRIMINALIZE it. i understand what you are saying here- that public lynchings were never legal. that is true (with the exception of law enforcement). so, the overt violence went away, but more subtle racism has persisted since that time. and, i am sure, it will NEVER fully go away. that's something we have to accept, just as we learn to accept evil. that does not mean, however, that it has to be tolerated. quite the contrary. Again you're confusing cause and effect. The pushback on the laws is the result of race relations regressing. Public resistance to laws is the symptom of underlying attitudes, not the cause of them. I'll grant you that PA laws have some effectiveness in preventing discrimination, just as drug laws have some effectiveness in preventing drug abuse. What isn't true is the belief that PA laws are a barrier to further regression, including regression back to attitudes of the 1920's. Simply put, the laws cannot prevent and were not designed to prevent the grave injustices of the 1920's nor are they a barrier to society regressing to such a state. The only harm they will ever prevent is hurt feelings and modest inconvenience. If society should regress to the point where the laws might prevent greater harm than this, I guarantee you: they will either cease to exist, or be so thoroughly ignored that they might as well not exist. Public accommodation laws were the reason that the lynchings, shootings and fire bombings STARTED. I thought that was self evident in the history books.
The South was content with their segregationist policy, but the federal government came in and started enforcing federal laws about desegregation, and the whites rebelled, causing the blacks to fight back. Race riots ensued. If the feds had left well enough alone, the South would still be like Apartheid South Africa. PA laws were the catalyst for outbursts of violence in many cases. The reason for the violence was that a sizeable contingent of white Americans, among those who had not been killed or dispossessed during the Civil War, as well as their children, their grandchildren, etc., were still thoroughly racist. If they could not discriminate, they would rout and exterminate. And they did. It was all-out war in many cases, and it was a war of attrition. Not because PA laws or their precursors were magically changing people's hearts and minds, but because the ideas of old were supplanted through the passage of time. Generations died, memories faded, loyalty to "the way things were" passed away, and society's collective heart shifted. The US federal government made its mark in the US Civil War, at the cost of a third of the US population. Generations were wiped out in bloody conflict. The old social order in the South, what remained of it, was largely dismantled. Wealth, power, and influenced shifted from one group of people to another. This was the government's victory, and I use "government" only so far as the term represents the millions of Union soldiers who shed their blood on the battlefield. This is what initiated the slow process of social transformation in the South. The effect of the laws, in the cases where anyone even paid them any heed at all, was to drive the attitudes not purged by the war underground and into other modalities of attack. The laws didn't accelerate the rate of attrition, and they certainly weren't the underlying cause of it. Hence no, if the feds had left well enough alone, the South would not "still be like Apartheid South Africa". Not even South Africa is still like Apartheid South Africa. Now, most people know that overt racial acts won't be tolerated. I'm not saying there aren't any racists, but they usually have the sense to keep that undercover. Sometimes, they don't - a few years back, some drunk good old boys lit a cross on the yard of a house where a woman and her black boyfriend were sleeping. They got picked up by the FBI and are sitting in jail for 20 years for a hate crime. Those idiots serve as an example to other potential idiots that burning crosses on people's yards is not some inconvenient act that causes hurt feelings. THAT'S how you prevent discrimination - enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Not sitting around hoping people's hearts will change.
Let's assume for now that the discrimination hasn't simply found other outlets (which makes the following somewhat hypothetical since we're discovering more and more that this is precisely what's happened). First of all, a cross burning on somebody's lawn isn't an issue of public accommodation or even discrimination. It's a threat. A "hate crime". It's trespassing on somebody's property to erect a symbol whose express meaning is "you are hated, and it is our intention to gravely harm you". Like murder, it's not even in the same galaxy as what we're discussing. Secondly, as I said to DJ, I'll grant that PA laws have some effectiveness in preventing discrimination. It's not my argument that they're completely ineffectual. My argument is that i) they don't change people's hearts and minds, ii) the harm they prevent is limited to hurt feelings and modest inconvenience, iii) they are an unjust tradeoff between the rights of the business owner and the rights of the consumer. If you want to expand the discussion to include cross burnings and murder, you're welcome to, but that's not what we're talking about here. Nobody on YMAM has ever spoken a word in the defense of the right to commit such acts. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 17:51:54 GMT -5
psssst! Kolt! again! Some of us are a LOT older than 30 and have equality for all persons on the top of our social justice agendas. Just sayin' . . . I'm also well aware of that. -_- I just see a lot more hate from people 30+ As it's a lot more easy to find in my experiences someone 30+ discriminating against the LGBTQ than it is for me to find it happen with people 25 and under The younger then 30 generation are much more likely to support anti-religion laws. They are much more likely to support laws that limit free speech. They are much more likely to support anti-gun laws. Those who want to punish business owners for following religious belief are, in my opinion, nothing more then bigots. They might be a bit less hateful then the anti-gay bigots, but their solution is infinitely worse. They want to legislate their anti-religion bigotry into law. You may think you have the high road, but pushing laws to punish people who have a view you disagree with is wrong. People my age are old enough to remember when liberals would support the rights of those they disagreed with no matter how much they abhorred the act. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 24, 2016 17:57:37 GMT -5
What was happening in the south (and to some degree in the north) during the 1920s was still happening in the 1960s. I was a teenager then so it is well within my lifetime. I saw my state's national guard separating some of my white co-citizens from my black co-citizens.
Not that long ago for some of us.
|
|
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 18:01:41 GMT -5
The company my wife works for hired a black woman to work in their bait processing division yesterday. The foreman said he wouldn't work with black people. He worked all day in the parking lot instead. The boss didn't resolve it as of EOD yesterday. Don't yet know what happened today.
Racism is alive and well, unfortunately.
I'm eminently aware of that. People are astonished how "in this day and age", with all the laws and statutes making it risky and inconvenient to discriminate, racist attitudes are still so prevalent. Surely the society with the most laws is the society with the least racism. It doesn't work that way. Laws don't change people's hearts and minds. The best they can do is to discourage people from acting on their impulses, and when we're talking about laws to prevent hurt feelings and inconvenience, they're a greater evil than they are a good. |
|
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 18:08:06 GMT -5
Umm... no. They actually don't. What the "substantial number" actually do is originate in "best interests of the community". In a lot of cases that MIRRORS scripture... but that doesn't mean it COMES FROM scripture. Case in point: laws against murdering and stealing. Does scripture have tenets against doing those things? Sure it does... BUT... So do the beliefs of the areligious as well as other faiths. And in the limited number of laws and statutes that do come from scripture... they should be removed from the law, if they cannot be reconciled with something non-scriptural. That's your ignorance speaking. You have no comprehension of what you're even talking about at this point, hence I'm not wasting any more keystrokes. My point stands: you're either sucking air or raging at the churchies with your "theocracy" argument. Q.E.D. |
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 18:09:58 GMT -5
What's funny is people that often support no regulations on gun laws want to regulate bathrooms with the same words.
"Laws won't stop the bad guy from getting the guns!"
well
"Laws won't stop the bad man from entering the restroom." but they don't seem to see it that way.
Although me personally? I'm not on the side of the fence that is actually someone going out and giving much support for anti-gun laws. I suppose I'm not someone really out there being all pro guns either.
I guess I feel like people have the right to own a gun if they so choose to do, but I have the right not to own one as well. That's my personal choice.
--
Nobody my age wants to limit freedom of speech we want our voice to be heard and we want our voice loud for all to know it's not okay to discriminate against a person for something they can't control.
Were the generation that doesn't want anyone to be discriminated for the color of their skin, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation and we will serve everyone that walks in when were serving to the public.
It's funny how you think that someone isn't a bigot for denying someone service and I'll never agree with it being a "religious belief" to deny someone service. It isn't unless you're denying many more people. To discriminate against one class is being a bigot... I don't know how you can think it isn't being a bigot to only discriminate against the LGBTQ but no other class of people, not straight people, not divorced people, not any other people, just the LGBTQ... how is that NOT being a bigot?
To say you're open for the public you should be OPEN to the PUBLIC. There's a reason they don't have a sign up saying "Christians Only" they don't want people that aren't Christian to discriminate against their business, because they want to let everyone in and not risk losing any customers until they see someone from the LGBTQ but they know very well they'll lose business if they had a "Christian Only" sign hanging up.
And someone wanting to be served in a place isn't a bigot, they want to be treated equally as the person behind them, that's it. They don't have an issue with the person serving them until they're being denied a service someone else is for something they can't control.
Yes, I would gladly support everyone to be treated equally in a public place no matter who the person is.
It isn't anti religion into law. It's serve someone in public if you're open to the public. A religious belief is not just DENYING ONE CLASS OF PEOPLE. One. Class. Out of all classes of people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 18:13:14 GMT -5
Umm... no. They actually don't. What the "substantial number" actually do is originate in "best interests of the community". In a lot of cases that MIRRORS scripture... but that doesn't mean it COMES FROM scripture. Case in point: laws against murdering and stealing. Does scripture have tenets against doing those things? Sure it does... BUT... So do the beliefs of the areligious as well as other faiths. And in the limited number of laws and statutes that do come from scripture... they should be removed from the law, if they cannot be reconciled with something non-scriptural. That's your ignorance speaking. You have no comprehension of what you're even talking about at this point, hence I'm not wasting any more keystrokes. My point stands: you're either sucking air or raging at the churchies with your "theocracy" argument. Q.E.D. 'at this point". Really? This is the point?  |
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 18:15:44 GMT -5
It doesn't work that way. Laws don't change people's hearts and minds. The best they can do is to discourage people from acting on their impulses, and when we're talking about laws to prevent hurt feelings and inconvenience, they're a greater evil than they are a good
Without the laws people would still be denying blacks work, and serving them in restaurants and stores, and some places it would be hard for them to live because they couldn't find work, or a place to eat, or a place to get food, ect.
It's more than hurt feelings. It's if one person is going to discriminate and let their discrimination show in public it could let another person do the same, and another.
And pretty soon someone will be living in a place that every shop they go to they can be turned away, every place they go to eat they can be turned away, every business they walk into they can be turned away to the point they can't even live.
To the point some could be kicked out of their job and then kicked out of a home if there weren't laws protecting it.
You and Hickle both act as if them being turned away is just hurt feelings, but fail to realize being turned away from one place and then the next place and the next could make it near impossible to live.
There are some towns in the United States that I'm sure if laws weren't enacted would work together to try to scare the LGBTQ out. To the point not one business in the entire town would work with them.
That's not hurt feelings that's the inability to live in a town.
Getting kicked out of a home puts a person on the street. Losing a job can end with a person being homeless.
I've been in towns that if laws didn't protect the LGBTQ or heck even African Americans down South they wouldn't be able to live where they're living. That is not okay. That goes far past just hurt feelings.
That is impacting a persons entire life.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 24, 2016 18:16:36 GMT -5
If we're talking about a cake, sure, I'll grant you that. And in most cases nowadays that may be true. The reason it is true is that most people and most business owners are not so bigoted, or will at least set aside their bigotry long enough to conduct their business. But it is not necessarily true. It is very possible that the harm could be great. Either way, however, the quality of rightness or wrongness is not determined by the degree of harm caused. An action is equally wrong if it creates a minor harm as if it creates a great or greater harm. Harm itself may be many shades of gray. Rightness or wrongness is black and white. The only real argument to be made by your side is whether it creates a greater harm to the business owner than to the customer. But it doesn't. It can't. He may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 18:21:35 GMT -5
What's funny is people that often support no regulations on gun laws want to regulate bathrooms with the same words. "Laws won't stop the bad guy from getting the guns!" well "Laws won't stop the bad man from entering the restroom." but they don't seem to see it that way. Although me personally? I'm not on the side of the fence that is actually someone going out and giving much support for anti-gun laws. I suppose I'm not someone really out there being all pro guns either. I guess I feel like people have the right to own a gun if they so choose to do, but I have the right not to own one as well. That's my personal choice. -- Nobody my age wants to limit freedom of speech we want our voice to be heard and we want our voice loud for all to know it's not okay to discriminate against a person for something they can't control. I agree many of your generation want your voice heard, but they also want voices and actions of those they disagree with to be silenced.Were the generation that doesn't want anyone to be discriminated for the color of their skin, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation and we will serve everyone that walks in when were serving to the public. It's funny how you think that someone isn't a bigot for denying someone service If that is addressed to me, I have said repeatedly that the guy who denied the cake was a bigot. I think he was a bigot, an ass, hateful for no good reason, wrong on what Christianity teaches, etc. and I'll never agree with it being a "religious belief" to deny someone service. It isn't unless you're denying many more people. To discriminate against one class is being a bigot... I don't know how you can think it isn't being a bigot to only discriminate against the LGBTQ again if that is directed at me, It is bigoted and I have never argued otherwise but no other class of people, not straight people, not divorced people, not any other people, just the LGBTQ... how is that NOT being a bigot? To say you're open for the public you should be OPEN to the PUBLIC. There's a reason they don't have a sign up saying "Christians Only" they don't want people that aren't Christian to discriminate against their business, because they want to let everyone in and not risk losing any customers until they see someone from the LGBTQ but they know very well they'll lose business if they had a "Christian Only" sign hanging up. And someone wanting to be served in a place isn't a bigot, they want to be treated equally as the person behind them, that's it. Wanting to use law to punish someone whose values you disagree with is bigotry. They don't have an issue with the person serving them until they're being denied a service someone else is for something they can't control. Yes, I would gladly support everyone to be treated equally in a public place no matter who the person is. It isn't anti religion into law. It's serve someone in public if you're open to the public. A religious belief is not just DENYING ONE CLASS OF PEOPLE. One. Class. Out of all classes of people. The bigots who want to punish the cake baker are worse then him, because they want to use force to push their bigotry, In particular they want to use the force of law to legislate their views into law. |
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 24, 2016 18:24:42 GMT -5
So their only values are to deny the LGBTQ that's their only value? That's what their religion teaches them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 18:29:44 GMT -5
If we're talking about a cake, sure, I'll grant you that. And in most cases nowadays that may be true. The reason it is true is that most people and most business owners are not so bigoted, or will at least set aside their bigotry long enough to conduct their business. But it is not necessarily true. It is very possible that the harm could be great. Either way, however, the quality of rightness or wrongness is not determined by the degree of harm caused. An action is equally wrong if it creates a minor harm as if it creates a great or greater harm. Harm itself may be many shades of gray. Rightness or wrongness is black and white. The only real argument to be made by your side is whether it creates a greater harm to the business owner than to the customer. But it doesn't. It can't. He may not like it, but there is zero actual harm created by asking him to conduct his business the same as he does for everyone else.
härm/
noun
noun: harm
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
"it's fine as long as no one is inflicting harm on anyone else"
No one was harmed. The cake baker initiated no force. Absence of action is not harm. Harm may come if aciton does not happen but it does not happen because of the lack of action. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 24, 2016 18:31:38 GMT -5
... The bigots who want to punish the cake baker are worse then him, because they want to use force to push their bigotry, In particular they want to use the force of law to legislate their views into law. Which is why I support making following non-discrimination laws a part of incorporation. It you ask us to use the force of law to set up a wall between your personal and business assets through limited liability, we ask you to set up a wall between your religious beliefs and your business practices. No force, choice. |
|
