Schmelzer said:Very simple - if I'm forced to work for people I don't want to work for, by government legislation, I'm a slave.
This freedom to make even irrational decisions is what distinguishs a free society from a totalitarian Brave New World where I'm obliged to make love with everybody.
Maybe. But this is not the business of the state.
Fortunately you are not. You can always quit. Slaves can't.Very simple - if I'm forced to work for people I don't want to work for, by government legislation, I'm a slave.
Agreed. You are free to do that. Of course you may have to live with the consequences of your actions.That means, once I have the freedom not to cooperate with people I don't like, and don't have to justify this decision, I can as well follow completely irrational principles, like religious, or racist, or homophob reasons.
Yet you have no problem with people who have no governing authority forcing you to work for people you don't want to work for?
Try it this way: Ask the waitress at your neighborhood pub if she likes "working for" all the customers she "works for".
Here's another one: Imagine for a moment that you are a Christian. You walk into, say, a bookstore. You are told, "We do not serve your kind here". Would you object?
Now, here's the catch: What if I'm not refusing you because you are a "Christian", but because I believe the graven image in your crucifix is idolatry, and therefore violative of the Christianity you proclaim, and the simple fact is that if I suspect one is a hypocrite, I will refuse service?
My own protected outlook under freedom of religion does not prohbit, and specifically endorses, homosexual life partnerships. Yet a Christian should be able to impose his or her religion on me?
The problem with the partnership is simply that the state - means with taxpayers money, including gay taxpayers - supports families. But possibly not gay partnerships. This is IMHO the problem - there should be no such support. Supporting particular ways of life financially is something which should be left to religious organizations.For many Christians, the prospect of equality is horrifying. Why? Because they are losing privilege. The expectation that they should be merely equal to their neighbors is argued as a violation of their equality.
Besides, this religious freedom thing is now to the point that Texas is preparing to protect those who force child victims of sexual abuse to carry pregnancies. So ... no, I just don't buy all that deliberately dishonest bullshit about religious freedom empowering discrimnation.
Sounds like you think that I hate homosexuals and fear homosexual love or so. Not at all. I simply defend the freedom of people even if I don't like them. Because the defense of freedom is a common interest. If I participate in the creation of a totalitarian society because those suppressed are (initially) those I despise or hate, I destroy my own freedom.Between your hatred and the love you so fear, there is a middle ground; it is called tolerance.
I don't.I mean, I know a lot of people would at this point resort to complaining about the idea of a business license,
I defend religious freedom as a well as freedom of speech and freedom of discrimination in any private contracts. Especially the last freedom is essential for a free society too, and under heavy attack today. Freedom of speech too - all this "hate speech" is directed against this basic freedom.When religious freedom requires others to sit by while you go out of your way to hurt people, we're doing it wrong.
If in this case I have to take extraordinary costs, which I would not have to face in a free society, this would be a sort of partial slavery.Fortunately you are not. You can always quit. Slaves can't.
Fine. This would include loosing this customer. As well as his friends, and, possibly, everybody who follows their recommendations to boycott me. I could continue my shop, possibly with less customers - but, possibly, even with more customers, because there may be a lot of customers who prefer shops where they do not have to meet this type of people. These would be the consequences in a free societyAgreed. You are free to do that. Of course you may have to live with the consequences of your actions.
Perhaps you shouldn't work in a service-providing industry, then.
Well, I have to pay more for a car because it has seatbelts. Doesn't make me a slave, partial or otherwise.If in this case I have to take extraordinary costs, which I would not have to face in a free society, this would be a sort of partial slavery.
No one is forcing you to do the things you hate.I would be forbidden to do reasonable and non-harmful things, which would allow me to make my living, to force me to do the things I hate.
Yes, you might suffer that as well.Fine. This would include loosing this customer. As well as his friends, and, possibly, everybody who follows their recommendations to boycott me. I could continue my shop, possibly with less customers - but, possibly, even with more customers, because there may be a lot of customers who prefer shops where they do not have to meet this type of people. These would be the consequences in a free society.
No, it would be the consequences of living in a society that operates under the rule of law.It would not include the consequences of his friends obstructing and inhibiting the access of other customers to my shop by violent means. It would not include government coming and closing my shop. These would be the consequences in a totalitarian society.
The part is quite small in this case. But this does not change the principle. Once I'm forced to pay for what I would not pay otherwise, I'm robbed. Once this robbery is a permanent one, established by government, it is a form of slavery.Well, I have to pay more for a car because it has seatbelts. Doesn't make me a slave, partial or otherwise.
Imposing penalties on me for not doing the things I hate is a form of forcing me. Of course, it may be a quite mild form. But it remains force.No one is forcing you to do the things you hate.
Rule of law may be totalitarian, if the law is totalitarian. Rule of law may be unjust, and is unjust, if the law is unjust.No, it would be the consequences of living in a society that operates under the rule of law.
You construct an extremal artificial example to obtain some case where a law which forbids to sell something to somebody else is just.You might want to sell poison to children. You might feel you have the right to do that, and that you make excellent poison, and that there are too many children anyway. You could decide that being denied the right to do that makes you a slave. You could even try to do so. If you did, you would then have to live with the consequences of your actions, since we live under the rule of law.
So people who would prefer gasoline was cheaper, but are forced to pay a higher price, are slaves?The part is quite small in this case. But this does not change the principle. Once I'm forced to pay for what I would not pay otherwise, I'm robbed. Once this robbery is a permanent one, established by government, it is a form of slavery.
Yes, and that's true whether the force comes from society (as in your example) from your family or from the government,Imposing penalties on me for not doing the things I hate is a form of forcing me. Of course, it may be a quite mild form. But it remains force.
Good; you admit where there are cases where laws forbidding (or requiring) you to do something are just. Now the question devolves to - is this one of those cases?You construct an extremal artificial example to obtain some case where a law which forbids to sell something to somebody else is just.
Ok, here you have a point. And there is, of course, the danger of misuse - of type once all this behaviour is anyway slavery, it makes no difference if we reintroduce slavery.(In general, I dislike such hyperbole. "Being forced to pay too much is slavery! Being forced to see pornographic art is rape! Fur is murder!" People who say such things, in general, are clueless as to what slavery, murder and rape actually mean.)
Yes. And the answer is quite obvious: Not.Good; you admit where there are cases where laws forbidding (or requiring) you to do something are just. Now the question devolves to - is this one of those cases?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slaveVery simple - if I'm forced to work for people I don't want to work for, by government legislation, I'm a slave.
all 20 of them have variatians of the same fucking idea. there is no choice or independent people. everyone is beholden to the approved ideology.What I like about the Republicans is they offer choice and a wide range of independent people with a wide range of ideas.
um there are other dems running than hillary. the dems are the only major party offering new ideas. between her and bernie there is a wider range of ideas than the entire clusterfuck of republicansThe Democrats offer no choice and their base has to vote for Hillary no matter how corrupt and incompetent since she is, simply because she has a D near her name. Why doesn't anyone else with a D offer new ideas? Do they all drink from the same Kool Aid, so it does not matter who they run; nothing original in any of them.
um the dems have more people away from the party line. the republican party is well known for its ability to force people to to the line. as usual you have every thing ass backwards. I can't tell if your honestly that devorced from reality or attempting to be political troll and just failling at epically?Who actually runs the Democratic show, so all have to tow the same party line, and it doesn't matter who is deemed by the powers to be? I get the impression the democratic leaders are figure heads and actors in a play, with rich and powerful people behind closed doors, running the show, as their directors. Republicans show more diversity and appear to be a party of self reliant people who are not tethered the same way.
If I'm told that I can't discriminate it means I have to live completely abstinent or to become a sex slave of everybody. That's why I defend the right to discriminate.being told you can't discriminate against others doesn't make you a slave. saying your a slave because you can't legally discriminate against others how ever quit probably makes you a jack ass
your not a freedom fighter. your a delusional hate monger who thinks thanks to your religion your better than those with whom you disagree with.If I'm told that I can't discriminate it means I have to live completely abstinent or to become a sex slave of everybody. That's why I defend the right to discriminate.
And not only for the choice of sexual partners, but also for the choice of all partners - even only short term business partners.
If defending such a basic freedom as the right of discrimination in my personal as well as business relations makes me a jack ass, so be it. I prefer to be called a jack ass and being a freedom fighter than to be called a good man fighting but fighting for a totalitarian regime.
just WTF no it fucking doesn't. having to treat someone the same as everyone else doesn't mean you have to have sex with them. you defend the right to discriminate because your bigot. your anti freedom though just like every other bigot.]If I'm told that I can't discriminate it means I have to live completely abstinent or to become a sex slave of everybody.
your not a freedom fighter. your a delusional hate monger who thinks thanks to your religion your better than those with whom you disagree with.
i'm sorry but being told you can't dicriminate doesn't make you a slave. if you want to operate in the public sphere you follow the rules which is you don't get to discriminate.
just WTF no it fucking doesn't. having to treat someone the same as everyone else doesn't mean you have to have sex with them. you defend the right to discriminate because your bigot. your anti freedom though just like every other bigot.
Thanks for presenting yourself as somebody who makes personal attacks related with "your religion" without even knowing if I follow a religion at all.your not a freedom fighter. your a delusional hate monger who thinks thanks to your religion your better than those with whom you disagree with.
If the "public sphere" would be only those buildings which are owned by the state, no problem - everybody is free to decide about the rules of behaviour on his property.i'm sorry but being told you can't dicriminate doesn't make you a slave. if you want to operate in the public sphere you follow the rules which is you don't get to discriminate.
my apologies, I didn't realize that your weren't a hateful religious zealot and instead a person who has decided to be hateful for shits and giggles. seriously arguing that you could possibly be a worse person isn't a defense. and no its not a personal attack. just because your touchy about your bigotry doesn't make logical inferences against it a personal attack.Thanks for presenting yourself as somebody who makes personal attacks related with "your religion" without even knowing if I follow a religion at all.
you aren't a freedom fighter. your trying to take freedom away from others.As a consistent freedom fighter, I fight also for the freedom of those people who will use these freedoms in inappropriate ways.
the public sphere is everything open to the public like you know most businessesIf the "public sphere" would be only those buildings which are owned by the state, no problem - everybody is free to decide about the rules of behaviour on his property.
do you not understand how businesses function. again not being able to discriminate doesn't make you slave. that comparison is moronic and an insult to the millions of real slaves in the world today.If the "public sphere" also includes my private rooms, which are simply open to visitors and friends, who want to use my services, but I'm nonetheless obliged "not to discriminate", then I'm a slave of the state with only a few remains of personal freedom.
no it isn't. last time i checked your genitals aren't open to the public.If I have sex with one person, and I'm forbidden to discriminate, that means, I have no right to refuse sex with anybody else - such a refusal would be, certainly, discrimination, based on quite irrational personal prejudices. Of course, I know that the obligation not to discriminate does not go - yet - that far. But the principle is the same.
again no it isn't. if i go to sign a contract to build a house on a lot and don't sign another one with some one else i'm not discriminating with them i'm merely choosing not to deal with them. again no one is saying you need to have sex with everyone. again not discrimination. but refusing to deal with a whole subset of people because of who or what they are is discrimination and illegal.If I sign a contract with one person, and refuse to sign a similar contract with another one, this is discrimination.
If I make sex with one person, and refuse to have sex with another one, this is also discrimination.
your a libertarian aren't you?One type of discrimination is forbidden, the other not. Yet. Fortunately. But the direction of the political development goes toward more and more anti-discrimination laws. And I think it is important to recognize this danger - and to accept that discrimination is a basic human right, a basic human freedom. Yes, it may be applied in not very nice ways by bigots and racists and other not very nice persons. But this is as usual - every human freedom can be misused, and the fighters against freedom always use such misuse to destroy the freedoms.
In this case, it is.Yes. And the answer is quite obvious: Not.
Agreed. However, that right is limited, because in our history it has, on occasion, been abused by bigots, racists and zealots.Thus, if one refuses to make a contract with somebody else, you have to right to refuse to make a contract with him. A right which you have anyway in a free society.
Nope. You can have sex with whoever you want. However, if you use that right to do harm you may find the right to do that limited by force. For example, discovering you have HIV, then having sex with people and not telling them may result in you being convicted of a crime - and if it continues, being put in jail where your ability to infect others is limited. If you consider that being a "sex slave" then you are free to pursue such fantasies.If I'm told that I can't discriminate it means I have to live completely abstinent or to become a sex slave of everybody. That's why I defend the right to discriminate.