A solution for the homosexual hating florists

He was appointed by Ronald Regan.

No, it needs two more Scalia types to become a conservative dictator. Why is it good when it's just as bad but agrees with conservative view points?

No the only way it will ever be anything less than a progressive dictator of Republican horse **** or democrat horse **** is if we get 5 libertarian justices on it.

 

Irrelevant. Everyone, even Reagan, makes mistakes.

You assume the conservative and the "progressive" viewpoints are equal. They are not. "progressives" want a dictatorship, and they act like it - look at how they ruled in 2009 when they had control of the govt, look at how they reject the duly elected govt today, look how they treat the "deplorables".

"progressives" have admitted they want to fundamentally change the USA, they call themselves revolutionaries, they hate everyone who does not think like they do. "progressives" live and breath the same life and breath as all murderous tyrants.

 

it's really simple, if they want to discriminate, they need to open a private shop open to members only

if they want to be public, they need to not descriminate

 

That may be an idea. Have customers fill out an application. If your homosexual, you can't be a member.

This should not be a big issue. Anything that takes creative talent is up to the artist who they wish to bestow their art on. If the florist or baker doesn't want to stamp their name on homosexual activity, it is should be their choice.

 

Well that means Kennedy has served for 26 years or more. The idea is to lose their biases.

I don't. There are only progressive view points is just that they differ in goals. People fancy themselves conservative for being progressive in that they claim to be fundamentally different from democrats.

The progressives that fancy themselves conservative wish to have a dictatorship. The current president is more liberal than he is conserving.

At least they're honest.

 

In this fantasy world of yours do we have to serve a Christian if we don't want or do these rules only apply to a single group of the population (unconstitutional).

 

I think the point was that if it is a private members only institution then the rules of public accommodation may be different and that's okay. An atheist club should not be forced into allowing Christians to infiltrate their ranks. Likewise a marriage support group that specializes in homosexual relationships should not be forced into accommodating heterosexuals. At least I think that was the point.

 

Certainly, anyone who refuses to shop at or buy from a business for discriminatory reasons should be subject to fines and sued.

 

Their business is their own property, they can service whoever the hell they like. If they don't want to provide flowers/cakes/whatever for a gay wedding, why should they?

P.S. please save me the trouble and don't just call me a homophobe, I'm gay.

 

I believe you have the right to do that, however if nobody wants to rent your tenements anymore because they think you are a racist piece of crap then that is on you.

 

I am a strong advocate of all or nothing, either everyone can discriminate for any reason or no one can discriminate for any reason. Everyone should play by the same rules. Right now the "christians" wanting the freedom to discriminate enjoy protections from discrimination - this should not be the case.

 

Everyone should be able to discriminate for any reason. It is THEIR property, not the government's. If you don't want Christians to come to your gay bakery I'd support that right too. I'd just think you are an idiot for refusing to make money, but believe you'd have the right nonetheless.

 

I was joking of course, and NO, in America we do NOT have the right to put up a "No negroes" sign when renting public housing, fortunately.

 

Well, you should be allowed to do it because now it probably happens "in the invisible" and it is much better for everyone if such tendencies are open so that customers know who's a c-nt and who is not. The market would handle such stupid discrimination anyways so we do not really need any such laws.

 

I know you were joking, however I believe everyone has the right to run their business as they see fit. If someone wants to put up a "no negroes" sign up in his store let him and watch the free market do its magic.

 

I'm an ideal world, you are correct. In th real world, that has historically harmed the banned demographic, not the storeowner.

 

So you do trust the populous to vote on a politician that will ban a "no negroes" sign, but you don't trust them to voluntarily stop going to stores with such signs? Something isn't adding up here.

 

Yesterday it was blacks. Today it would be some other disfavored group.

And you can elect a politician with 50% + 1 of voters. If the other 50% - 1 decides to discriminate, then the disfavored group is shut out of half of the economy.

 

No they can't. The civil rights act made accommodation laws that you cannot violate. That is what cd8ed is talking about. He believes that if one accommodation law is wrong they all are. I happen to agree.

I agree that they shouldn't have to. But if a business doesn't want to serve Indian people or a Jewish person they should have that right. What makes a Jewish person more entitled to public accommodation than people with tattoos or gay people?

 

1) Just because a law says they can't do it doesn't mean they don't have the right to do so. Laws are just arbitrary rules that dumb bureaucrats made up.
I'm not objecting to the fact that the people got punished for breaking the law, that is simply the way laws work. I am arguing that the law should be abolished because it is a dumb law.

2) I absolutely agree, if you want to put up a "no Jews" sign in your business have at it. I'll just sit back and watch the free market does its magic, you won't need a government to bankrupt you, your (prior)customers will do it for you..

 

And if the people democratically elect a racist with 51% of the votes then the disfavoured group is shut out of the ENTIRE economy. Which do you prefer?
There is a reason why our rights(including the right to service whoever the hell you want) shouldn't be a subject to the popular vote.

 

I think we are in agreement.

yes I prefer the laissez-faire approach to the market

 

Well in that case I completely agree with you, nothing more to add on my part. Cheers.

 

Yep. That sucks. Though the barrier to that is pretty high in our form of government. You can't just elect ONE racist. You have to elect a whole bunch of them, in different parts of government.

Uh, neither. Which is why I support anti-discrimination laws for public accommodations.

While I agree with the philosophical principle that some rights are innate, as a practical matter there is literally no other way to actually secure rights than to have a majority vote it into law. Until they are secured by law, they are nothing but a nice idea.

Further, you seem to forget that there are TWO rights at stake here. You are VERY concerned about the right of the storeowner to discriminate, but not at all concerned with the right of people to have access to the economy.

Consider, for example, the case of small, rural towns. There may be only one doctor or one grocery store within 30 miles. Should that storeowner or doctor have the right to refuse service to, say, Jews? Forcing them to drive 30 miles when they're sick, or need food (assuming they actually can afford a car)? At what point are the customer's rights being abridged?

In such cases, where you have to choose whose rights take precedence, I'm willing to burden the person who has chosen to start a business selling items to the public in order to make money. They have made a choice, unlike the customer. If they choose to open a business serving the public, it is reasonable to require them to abide by a few rules.

 

You say that a free market approach is a bad idea because "what if 50% percent of the population is a racist?"
I respond by saying that the same can be said for a democracy, and that the consequences would be a lot worse in that case.
You respond by saying it is unlikely that 50% of the population is a racist.

You aren't making any sense.

Again, you aren't making any sense.

The only way you can pass those types of laws are in a democracy where the majority of people aren't racists. And if racism is so rampant those types of racist business don't go out of business in a free market then that means the majority of the people are racists who will not vote to pass that law.

Your criticism on my approach is that it doesn't work if the majority of people are racists, but the exact same thing is true in a democracy where people can vote each other's rights away, except the consequences are much more severe. If the rights YOU don't care about can be voted away, then why do you think the rights you DO care about can't be?

All rights are innate, if it isn't innate then it isn't a right. This isn't a philosophical issue, that is the literal definition of a right.

Uhm so constitutions aren't a thing anymore? Why don't we just write down everyone's rights and then make it impossible for those rights to be changed through democratic means? And yes, that means the rights that inconvenience you can't be broken either, like the right of a business owner to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.

No rights are what exist until a law takes them away. I have freedom of speech until a law says I don't, I have the freedom to do whatever I want with my own property until a law says I don't. Rights are the innate things we poses, our bodies and by extension our property. We do not need laws to secure them, we need to prevent laws from taking them away. If you will find your rights violated then there is a 100% chance there is a law you need to remove from the books, not a law you need to add to it.

That is because being granted access to another person's property isn't a right, but a privilege. If you enter my business without my permission then that is trespassing and a violation of my rights. If you need a law to violently enforce a "right", then it isn't a right.

Yes. Rights don't just disappear because they inconvenience someone. You aren't entitled to a doctor's help, because a doctor is in possession of his own body and his own labour. If you'd force the doctor to service someone against his will, just because he happens to have certain knowledge, then that is called slavery.

When the customer is treated in a way he didn't consent to. For instance if I agree to trade my money for a pair of headphones, and the headphones turn out not to work, then my rights have been violated. Because the VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION I agreed to was trading my money for a working pair of headphones, not a broken pair.

Another example would be if I enter a store and the clerk rapes me. That would be a violation of my right to, because I didn't agree to that.

Here's a simply guideline: If something is done to you against your will, your rights have been broken. If something is refused from you even though you want or need it, a privilege is not being granted to you. There is an important distinction here.

A right always takes precedence over a privilege.

Yes, they have made a choice. The choice not to service Jews. You are trying to use violence to force them to make a different choice. You want to violate their rights because you feel someone is entitled to the labour of another person. Nobody is entitled to anything, that is why we say please and thank you.

They don't open a business to service the public, only the government does that. A business service individuals, and therefore reserve the right to refuse any individual they see fit. And it is never reasonable for anyone to be forced to do anything that violates their rights.