User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 3:07:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Anyone think this is going to set up an interesting supreme court case?
...gay and lesbian civil rights cases? ...gay, lesbian, and transgender special protections, "affirmative action" quotas? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 3:11:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone think this is going to set up an interesting supreme court case? ...gay and lesbian civil rights cases? ...gay, lesbian, and transgender special protections, "affirmative action" quotas? You mean the law that is almost identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The one the Supreme Court has not only upheld, but expanded? That Indiana law? http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/24/indianas-so-called-right-to-discriminate |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 3:13:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean the law that is almost identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The one the Supreme Court has not only upheld, but expanded? That Indiana law? http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/24/indianas-so-called-right-to-discriminate Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anyone think this is going to set up an interesting supreme court case? ...gay and lesbian civil rights cases? ...gay, lesbian, and transgender special protections, "affirmative action" quotas? You mean the law that is almost identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The one the Supreme Court has not only upheld, but expanded? That Indiana law? http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/24/indianas-so-called-right-to-discriminate It's the spin that is concerning. ...and there is some spin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 3:16:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's the spin that is concerning. ...and there is some spin. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anyone think this is going to set up an interesting supreme court case? ...gay and lesbian civil rights cases? ...gay, lesbian, and transgender special protections, "affirmative action" quotas? You mean the law that is almost identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The one the Supreme Court has not only upheld, but expanded? That Indiana law? http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/24/indianas-so-called-right-to-discriminate It's the spin that is concerning. ...and there is some spin. IMHO the reason the gay-rights lobby is freaking out about this law is because it seriously hinders their efforts to marginalize and stigmatize religious beliefs about homosexuality. That's why they are furiously spinning this as some kind of "license to discriminate"; their social agenda is at stake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 3:17:28 PM EDT
[#5]
The sky is falling!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 3:17:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Why do conservatives stand up for things they're supposed to? Idk, that question falls off the stupid tree a lot. Maybe they should be Democrats.
I think it's great that they put religious freedom, the 1st Amendment, over people's butt sex paraphilia. The Left wants Christians to either go out of business by not supporting perverted faux "marriages", or make them give up their beliefs and support the idolatry of these fake unions. Because the Left is so super duper tolerant they can't tolerate Christians. I'm pretty sure it's the Lefts' love of confusing biology that fell off the "stupid tree". Man and woman being creatures made for each other is a painfully obvious fact, despite post-modern attempts to deny truth. It's a shame "conservatives" have jumped onto the 'stupid' that maybe a penis is made for a butt and maybe two vaginas are made for each other, a person's "feelings" are what really count. Unless you feel that's wrong based on, oh, biology, or longstanding religious beliefs, then your feelings are wrong and stupid. Yeah, ok. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 3:18:36 PM EDT
[#7]
It's fascinating how "my civil rights and freedoms are more important AND trump your civil rights and freedoms..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 3:21:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean the law that is almost identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The one the Supreme Court has not only upheld, but expanded? That Indiana law? http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/24/indianas-so-called-right-to-discriminate Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone think this is going to set up an interesting supreme court case? ...gay and lesbian civil rights cases? ...gay, lesbian, and transgender special protections, "affirmative action" quotas? You mean the law that is almost identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The one the Supreme Court has not only upheld, but expanded? That Indiana law? http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/24/indianas-so-called-right-to-discriminate Don't forget to mention that there golden boy Bill Clinton is the one who signed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:12:48 PM EDT
[#9]
The bill signing makes Indiana the 20th state in the nation to adopt such legislation. It is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1993. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:14:15 PM EDT
[#10]
IN fuck yeah!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:16:04 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's fascinating how "my civil rights and freedoms are more important AND trump your civil rights and freedoms..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:16:37 PM EDT
[#12]
So can I refuse to make a cake for, say, a pinko based on the fact that I just don't fucking like them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:20:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Religious people can fire gay people for being gay.
Gay people can't fire religious people for being religious [Federal Civil Rights Act]. Talk about "special rights". Just more hypocrisy as usual. It will be interesting once a religious person denies/fires another religious person of a different persuasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:24:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why they are furiously spinning this as some kind of "license to discriminate"; their social agenda is at stake. I don't see how it couldn't be discrimination. But so is affirmative action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:26:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IMHO the reason the gay-rights lobby is freaking out about this law is because it seriously hinders their efforts to marginalize and stigmatize religious beliefs about homosexuality. That's why they are furiously spinning this as some kind of "license to discriminate"; their social agenda is at stake. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone think this is going to set up an interesting supreme court case? ...gay and lesbian civil rights cases? ...gay, lesbian, and transgender special protections, "affirmative action" quotas? You mean the law that is almost identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The one the Supreme Court has not only upheld, but expanded? That Indiana law? http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/24/indianas-so-called-right-to-discriminate It's the spin that is concerning. ...and there is some spin. IMHO the reason the gay-rights lobby is freaking out about this law is because it seriously hinders their efforts to marginalize and stigmatize religious beliefs about homosexuality. That's why they are furiously spinning this as some kind of "license to discriminate"; their social agenda is at stake. Meh. There shouldn't be a law that allows you to discriminate. It should simply not be illegal in the first place. Let everyone do business with whomever they will, for whatever reasons seem best to them. Let the market sort it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:30:05 PM EDT
[#16]
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:37:58 PM EDT
[#17]
In in IN.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:50:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. But isn't ARFCOM always complaining bitterly about Muslim cashiers who won't ring up a customer with alcohol or pork products, or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse service to people with seeing-eye dogs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:53:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do conservatives stand up for things they're supposed to? Idk, that question falls off the stupid tree a lot. Maybe they should be Democrats. I think it's great that they put religious freedom, the 1st Amendment, over people's butt sex paraphilia. The Left wants Christians to either go out of business by not supporting perverted faux "marriages", or make them give up their beliefs and support the idolatry of these fake unions. Because the Left is so super duper tolerant they can't tolerate Christians. I'm pretty sure it's the Lefts' love of confusing biology that fell off the "stupid tree". Man and woman being creatures made for each other is a painfully obvious fact, despite post-modern attempts to deny truth. It's a shame "conservatives" have jumped onto the 'stupid' that maybe a penis is made for a butt and maybe two vaginas are made for each other, a person's "feelings" are what really count. Unless you feel that's wrong based on, oh, biology, or longstanding religious beliefs, then your feelings are wrong and stupid. Yeah, ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 4:59:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. There it is.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:01:44 PM EDT
[#21]
I think that article is full of crap. He implys there are only two cases of discrimination that have gone to court. That is patently false. The implication is that it's not THAT big of a problem is ridiculous. Are we really supposed to believe that all of these laws are being passed for fun? The gay agenda is clear, silence all critics. You are a fool to think otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:08:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Federal law (1993):
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Indiana state law (2015): Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief. They look the same to me. Why all the fuss? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:11:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do conservatives stand up for things they're supposed to? Idk, that question falls off the stupid tree a lot. Maybe they should be Democrats.
I think it's great that they put religious freedom, the 1st Amendment, over people's butt sex paraphilia. The Left wants Christians to either go out of business by not supporting perverted faux "marriages", or make them give up their beliefs and support the idolatry of these fake unions. Because the Left is so super duper tolerant they can't tolerate Christians. I'm pretty sure it's the Lefts' love of confusing biology that fell off the "stupid tree". Man and woman being creatures made for each other is a painfully obvious fact, despite post-modern attempts to deny truth. It's a shame "conservatives" have jumped onto the 'stupid' that maybe a penis is made for a butt and maybe two vaginas are made for each other, a person's "feelings" are what really count. Unless you feel that's wrong based on, oh, biology, or longstanding religious beliefs, then your feelings are wrong and stupid. Yeah, ok. Here is a thought. Homosexuality might not upset you so much if you didn't spend so much time thinking and talking about all the intimate, juicy, fluid-splashing details. The most frequent, and detailed descriptions of homosexuality that I have seen on the Internet always seem to come from people who are against it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:12:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. Just curious here. Does anyone remember why we have such laws in the first place? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:17:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Big Ten bitching about this is funny.
PA and IL already had state RFRAs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:18:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But isn't ARFCOM always complaining bitterly about Muslim cashiers who won't ring up a customer with alcohol or pork products, or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse service to people with seeing-eye dogs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. But isn't ARFCOM always complaining bitterly about Muslim cashiers who won't ring up a customer with alcohol or pork products, or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse service to people with seeing-eye dogs? I'm not ARFCOM. But, I think the owner of the business has a say. Their business, and as an employee I'd be bound by whatever agreements my employer and I have made with regard to my employment. If the business owner says "Hey, if you don't want to ring up pork, we'll have someone else do it. No biggie." then fine. If the boss says "To work here, you need to check that shit at the door and do your job", well, then I can feel free to go elsewhere if I don't agree. The bottom line for me is simple - if a business owner decides they don't want to do business with Blacks, or Gays, or Midget Albinos, great. Their choice. I can also decide "I'm not going to patronize a business that won't provide goods or services to that group." Many people would probably decide similar. And I'd imagine the aforementioned business would eventually go under. All without big government involvement. Isn't freedom awesome? I think so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:22:59 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not ARFCOM. But, I think the owner of the business has a say. Their business, and as an employee I'd be bound by whatever agreements my employer and I have made with regard to my employment. If the business owner says "Hey, if you don't want to ring up pork, we'll have someone else do it. No biggie." then fine. If the boss says "To work here, you need to check that shit at the door and do your job", well, then I can feel free to go elsewhere if I don't agree. The bottom line for me is simple - if a business owner decides they don't want to do business with Blacks, or Gays, or Midget Albinos, great. Their choice. I can also decide "I'm not going to patronize a business that won't provide goods or services to that group." Many people would probably decide similar. And I'd imagine the aforementioned business would eventually go under. All without big government involvement. Isn't freedom awesome? I think so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bottom line is simple - if the goverment is discriminating against gays, or a person of some religion, or whatever, THAT is a constitutional issue. If it is a business or a person doing so, it's not. Businesses and individual people should be able to do business with whomever they choose, and refuse to do business with anyone they choose. THAT is freedom. I don't want a government telling me who I MUST associate with. But isn't ARFCOM always complaining bitterly about Muslim cashiers who won't ring up a customer with alcohol or pork products, or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse service to people with seeing-eye dogs? I'm not ARFCOM. But, I think the owner of the business has a say. Their business, and as an employee I'd be bound by whatever agreements my employer and I have made with regard to my employment. If the business owner says "Hey, if you don't want to ring up pork, we'll have someone else do it. No biggie." then fine. If the boss says "To work here, you need to check that shit at the door and do your job", well, then I can feel free to go elsewhere if I don't agree. The bottom line for me is simple - if a business owner decides they don't want to do business with Blacks, or Gays, or Midget Albinos, great. Their choice. I can also decide "I'm not going to patronize a business that won't provide goods or services to that group." Many people would probably decide similar. And I'd imagine the aforementioned business would eventually go under. All without big government involvement. Isn't freedom awesome? I think so. So why were those laws passed in the first place? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:28:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:29:31 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? So it was the No More Than Fucking Children Act, because people were being rude to each other? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:31:08 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:31:33 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it was the No More Than Fucking Children Act, because people were being rude to each other? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? So it was the No More Than Fucking Children Act, because people were being rude to each other? Why not just come right out and say whatever you're trying to say, 14er, instead of playing little passive-aggressive games, ok? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:36:47 PM EDT
[#32]
So whats the problem?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:39:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So whats the problem? Some people are insecure little children who want mommy and daddy to make those big meanies like them. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:40:12 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? Truth |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:41:03 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just come right out and say whatever you're trying to say, 14er, instead of playing little passive-aggressive games, ok? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? So it was the No More Than Fucking Children Act, because people were being rude to each other? Why not just come right out and say whatever you're trying to say, 14er, instead of playing little passive-aggressive games, ok? Well, in a way, I am saying that you are right -- that it was because of people acting like fucking children. It got really out of hand and caused a lot of problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:41:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Truth Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? Truth Surely someone here knows more than that. Well, maybe not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:43:32 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal law (1993): Indiana state law (2015): They look the same to me. Why all the fuss? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal law (1993): (a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Indiana state law (2015): Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief. They look the same to me. Why all the fuss? Because commies don't want a business owner to decide who they want to do business with or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 5:47:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Surely someone here knows more than that. Well, maybe not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? Truth Surely someone here knows more than that. Well, maybe not. Do you want the feel-good version, or do you want the truth? Feel-good version: "We want to end segregation and inequality!" Truth: "I'll have them *n words* voting Democrat for 200 years!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:07:35 PM EDT
[#39]
 It's fun to argue on the internet ain't it .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:24:42 PM EDT
[#40]
You guys should stop feeding the latest troll.
I do love the irony of people fighting for freedom by fighting against freedom. Laws like this shouldn't be necessary because it should be impossible to be punished for making business decisions using one's religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:27:33 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you want the feel-good version, or do you want the truth? Feel-good version: "We want to end segregation and inequality!" Truth: "I'll have them *n words* voting Democrat for 200 years!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? Truth Surely someone here knows more than that. Well, maybe not. Do you want the feel-good version, or do you want the truth? Feel-good version: "We want to end segregation and inequality!" Truth: "I'll have them *n words* voting Democrat for 200 years!" So racial discrimination in the South never was a "real" problem. Good to know it worked for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:33:23 PM EDT
[#42]
Why is this dumbass gay bullshit always so divisive.
I get fucking tired of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:34:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So racial discrimination in the South never was a "real" problem. Good to know it worked for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? Truth Surely someone here knows more than that. Well, maybe not. Do you want the feel-good version, or do you want the truth? Feel-good version: "We want to end segregation and inequality!" Truth: "I'll have them *n words* voting Democrat for 200 years!" So racial discrimination in the South never was a "real" problem. Good to know it worked for you. I never said it "wasn't a problem". But whenever government passes laws that erode freedom, it helps to know the real reason it is being done. Do you really believe the government is all altruistic and shit? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:37:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is this dumbass gay bullshit always so divisive. I get fucking tired of it. Try ignoring it. I do and it almost never bothers me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:38:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said it "wasn't a problem". But whenever government passes laws that erode freedom, it helps to know the real reason it is being done. Do you really believe the government is all altruistic and shit? Yeah, I think those were my exact words "all altruistic and shit". Good reading skills there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:39:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why were they passed? Because most people are nothing more than fucking children who don't know how to act without government force? Because the South insisted on fucking it up for everyone. Honestly, the CRA was probably the least worst option. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:39:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But isn't ARFCOM always complaining bitterly about Muslim cashiers who won't ring up a customer with alcohol or pork products, or Muslim taxi drivers who refuse service to people with seeing-eye dogs? Yes. And complaining about it is the correct response as is taking your business elsewhere if you feel strongly enough. It should not be a legal matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:55:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... So racial discrimination in the South never was a "real" problem. Good to know it worked for you. I think the bigger point GrandfatherCoyote is making is not whether discrimination was a problem, but whether the use of government force is an appropriate way to deal with the problem. I don't believe that one can end racism by passing a law that prohibits discrimination. The best that such a law can accomplish is to drive outward manifestations of racism underground where they are hidden from public view. When this happens, public shaming and market forces cannot be brought to bear. As GrandfatherCoyote pointed out, if he doesn't like a racist business practice he can take his business elsewhere. However, if he cannot discern what business are and are not run by people he does not like (because they are forced by the law to hide their positions) he cannot choose not to patronize those businesses. As racism becomes hidden, the law extends its reach further to try and derive what is in our hearts and minds by resorting to other methods to try and find racism, such as by looking at disparate impacts and aggregate data. It almost becomes a witch hunt of sorts for racists and racism may be found where it, in fact, doesn't exist. This can cause resentment for the law and may even breed the very thing the law might be said to try and eliminate. Consider that before 1964 it was still perfectly legal for private businesses to discriminate. Overt discrimination was obvious, and market forces and social pressure could be brought to bear upon discriminators. Just look at what happened with Woolworth's lunch counter. Racial discrimination in private services was already on the way out because public sentiment was shifting. Did the law really accelerate that trend, or did it send us on a different trajectory? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 6:59:48 PM EDT
[#49]
If we are supposed to appreciate diversity then that means that ALL peoples diversity must be appreciated. I not only have to put up with you. You also have to put up with me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 7:07:01 PM EDT
[#50]
I'm fine with it. If gays want to get married in a church and have the church recognize them then why don't they start their own damn churches and religion?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
