Special Rights

[Michael]

US Senate backs 'Enda' gay rights bill

The first comment I'd make is this is a classic example of the Government doing something that almost no one opposes, has broad social support, and is therefor unneeded. It's typical politician demagoguery: Pretend there's a problem, pretend to 'do something about it', pretend it's fixed, and actually making things worse. This last part is the karma for using force against people. You see, most business owners, care about making a profit. Most could not care one way or another if you're white, black, yellow, gay, straight, transgendered. What they want, is to make a profit. They may not realize it, but doing so is a virtue and helps make the entire society wealthier.

In a free society, it's VERY difficult for a bigot to stay in business as the bigot purposely chooses LESS qualified people based on a preconceived illogical notion as well as repulses a segment of the market away from doing business with them. Given in a free-market ANYONE could open up a business and offer a similar product, the bigot will either voluntarily change his behaviors (if not his mind) or go bankrupts.

Sadly, we don't live in a free society.

But, even so, here's the thing. "Good" and "Bad" doesn't come in a color or sex, it doesn't stay poor or rich. A "Good" Business owner is always worried about the next person they employ will be a "Bad" employee. They want someone they can trust, who is going to work hard to make them a profit and isn't going to sue them. They want to be able to fire this person if they find out they do not make them a profit, may be stealing and do not work hard. So, imagine you're a business owner and you hire a gay black woman. You're taking a great legal risk because the government has given "special rights" to blacks, to gays and to women. This means even a "Good" business owner will think twice about taking the chance hiring a gay black woman. Which is a shame as this woman may be the best, hardest working woman and a dream come true. See, it'd be much easier to hire a straight, white, man. That way if he's a waste of space, he can be easily fired and replace with someone else.

A bill banning workplace discrimination against gay and transgender people has passed a critical test of support in the US Senate, 17 years after a similar bill failed by a single vote. The Democratic-led Senate voted 61-30 to open debate on the legislation, with several Republicans backing it. The bill is expected to win final Senate passage as early as this week. The White House strongly supports the measure, but its future in the Republican-led House remains unclear.

The countries finances are going into the sewer and here's the Senate's priority. You know, because they're Law Makers and have to be seen pretending to work by Making Up laws - and then pretending these actually help the "Nation".

The fact is, this law is going to harm gays and transgenders. Which is a shame.

People can boycott companies with owners and managers that act like bigots. I know I would. We don't NEED a law and we should not have such a thing called "Special Rights". All people have the same rights. As soon as people are categorized, it creates a sense that they're different. When in fact they are the same. UC Berkeley used to use race-quota when accepting students. This then meant, for decades, tens of thousands of hard working Asian kids were discriminated against based on their 'race' and not allowed to attend based on merit. These so-called Laws are perverse. If people truly care about this issue, then they'll 'vote' with their money and boycott bigoted businesses. Take Chick-Fil-A, I've never done business with them - and never will. At least not until they publicly make retribution for their bigoted stance on homosexuality. See, THIS is the moral action. THIS is civilization. NOT turning to the State in an attempt to use it's special powers (the gun) to solve each and every social problem. THAT is a return to the jungle. Thinking the State is going to achieve anything other than the opposite of it's stated goals is a very superstitious thought process. Like saying we'll Rape our way to happiness. It isn't going to happen (see: Detroit).



Using the State to provide groups of people with "Special Rights" is immoral as it violates the non-aggression axiom. Yea, I know, that inner-monkey is hopping up and down with it's stick Ooging and screeching and tossing poo and wanting to 'do something'......... well, too bad. Take it up with Ethics. A peaceful moral Civilization requires a moral society, which means no turning to the Gun at the first sign of clouds.

 

[billvon]

People can boycott companies with owners and managers that act like bigots. I know I would.

No you wouldn't - because you wouldn't even know. You'll be driving somewhere and need wiper fluid and you'll stop at Autozone to get some - never realizing they discriminate against gay employees.

We don't NEED a law and we should not have such a thing called "Special Rights". All people have the same rights.

Agreed. And when a group of people is systematically discriminated against, it is appropriate to pass laws to guarantee them the same rights that everyone else has.

Yea, I know, that inner-monkey is hopping up and down with it's stick Ooging and screeching and tossing poo and wanting to 'do something'.........

Stop flinging poo, calm your inner monkey and accept a world where gays have the same rights as everyone else (even if it takes legislation to accomplish that.) Flingng poo never works out well in the long run anyway,

 

[Michael]

No you wouldn't - because you wouldn't even know. You'll be driving somewhere and need wiper fluid and you'll stop at Autozone to get some - never realizing they discriminate against gay employees.

I agree, but of course, until one were to look into the mind of someone else (and even then, maybe not) you'd never know.

Controlled scientific studies suggest those that are the most anti-homosexual, are aroused by same-sex pictures and are in reality committing self-loathing. A child raised peacefully and logically would (A) not be taught some superstitious non-sense about homosexuality being sinful and (B) would understand that anatomically, the brain is wired for sexual preference. Children do not need be taught to desire another sexually, it's largely genetic.

Agreed. And when a group of people is systematically discriminated against, it is appropriate to pass laws to guarantee them the same rights that everyone else has.

This sentence contradicts itself.

Everyone has the same legal rights. Period.

Your use of the word 'discriminate' is nonsensical as can be seen in the following examples:
- Students lower IQ's are systematically discriminated against in various places of employment as well as academic entry. This has been an ongoing act of 'discrimination' for 2000 years (since the Chinese Emperor devised entrance exams for the Mandarins).
- Short people discriminated against in the NBA. This has been the case since it was first developed into a professional sport. And Black Americans are disproportionately discriminated in favor of Asian Americans who are discriminated against due to their smaller stature.
- People with poor eye sight are discriminated against as pilots in the airline industry - as well as for government work in the airforce.


Let's think about it this way: There are three people. Person (A) wants coffee, Person (B) owns some coffee and Person (C) is a barista and makes coffee. Person C, the barista, sells her labor to Person B. This is a voluntary arrangement. Person B placed a 'help needed' sign willing to pay $10/hr for a barista. Many people walked by. But, one day Person C showed up willing to sell their labor at the agreed upon price. Then came Person A wanting some coffee. Person A saw the coffee owner was selling cups for $3 and volunteered to buy a cup.

Now, what's interesting here is you want to write a Law to enact force against Person B. You see Person B as the 'owner' and so you got it in your head Person B has ALL the power in our cappuccino me'nage a' trois. But that's not true, each of these are in reality individual relationships buying and selling from one another. You could just as well pass a Law against Person C for being 'too discriminating' in their choice of work. I mean *gasp* a lot of people did walk past that "help needed" sign. Or against Person A for being 'too discriminating' in their choice of coffee. But, due to a historical legacy of Aristocratic Land owners (whom actually did have much of the power) and Peons (who were relatively powerless), you've settled your sights on Person B. Which of course is silly. Each person is free to buy and sell among themselves. Discrimination is an act you do on a daily bases all day long. The best way to move forward with society is to structure it in such a way as to facilitate free interaction, that is with: Sound money (of each trade in the example, 50% of that trade was money), private property (including the business as well as the person) and Law (an agreed upon work contract is upheld, an agreed upon price of coffee is upheld, coffee really is coffee (no fraud), etc..),

By choosing to employ State Force against Person B, you are committing a immoral action. This is a simple fact of ethics. While person B may be a bigot in term of whom she hires (maybe the owner favors pretty young university girls because she thinks it will create an atmosphere and bring more university students to her cafe'?) this is not immoral. Bigotry is a lack of mental development, of small mindedness and heartlessness. It's a lack of virtue.

Don't you think it'd be pretty sad if YOUR actions were immoral and that of the bigots' not? Something to think about. Because if you find yourself justifying an immoral action - you might want to reevaluate your reasoning.

And, the truth is, you'd be too cowardly to actually enforce such a Law all by yourself. If you did believe that Person B was being 'too discriminating' and 'needed punished / to make retribution' because of whom they chose to purchase labor from, you'd never in a million years put on a blue monkey suite, don a gun, and drag Person B off their private property, past their husband and children, and into a little rape-cage you keep in your basement. Ah, but give you the vote - and you're more than happy to do so - or have someone do so in your stead. The vote is a little fun-perversion of justice like that now isn't it? You know, getting the satisfaction of knowing all the other like minded people support such atrocity while getting a chance to satiate a bit of the monkey blood lust. Yet, and here's the really interesting thing. You yourself are not an equal opportunity coffee drinker. And I bet, you don't work as barista either.


Our prisons are filled with innocent people because of such immoral thinking. That, is a fact.

Stop flinging poo, calm your inner monkey and accept a world where gays have the same rights as everyone else (even if it takes legislation to accomplish that.) Flingng poo never works out well in the long run anyway

Again, this sentence makes no sense. Of course gays should have the same legal rights as anyone else. The ONLY institution that's discriminated AGAINST gays is the government when it made marriage illegal. It of course was immoral that the State had any say in marriage at all to begin with. But, of course that was due to Income Tax, something else that was immoral. Thus from the Federal Reserve derived the IRS and income tax which eventuated the State discriminating against some groups of people (married versus non-married) and it's discrimination against homosexuals - which now it pretends to fix. Classic government, create a mess and then pretend to fix it - and create an even bigger mess as employers worried about being sued hire less people who are identifiable homosexuals.

Which is all great news to the Government, it just means more Government. A win-win for the State. From Sin begets more Sin I suppose.



The fact is, you're correct in that we CAN NEVER know what someone is thinking. However, if a person seems to be or outright acts as a bigot, then we most certainly can use reputation (which now-a-days is quite easy to do via social networking) to refuse to do business with said bigot. And by refuse to do business - I mean ALL BUSINESS. The bigot must be made to feel the repercussions of his bigotry by society peacefully volunteering not to do business - ANY BUSINESS, with them. Not only not buying from them, but also not selling to them. Which means, no food, no electricity, no fuel - nothing. Humans are social animals, I think you'll find peaceful refusal of voluntary interaction to be much more punishing then some pathetic fine in the mail.

 

[Balerion]

US Senate backs 'Enda' gay rights bill

The first comment I'd make is this is a classic example of the Government doing something that almost no one opposes, has broad social support, and is therefor unneeded.

You're wrong twice. First, you're wrong that there's no opposition to this bill. It failed to pass the last time it was introduced, and Speaker Boehner has already spoken out against it. If by "no one" you simply mean people in the streets, that's because bigots are also cowards who aren't going to get in front of cameras and fight for their right to not hire qualified transgender workers based on their gender identity.

You see, most business owners, care about making a profit. Most could not care one way or another if you're white, black, yellow, gay, straight, transgendered. What they want, is to make a profit. They may not realize it, but doing so is a virtue and helps make the entire society wealthier.

What you're saying here is that no problem exists because "most business owners" (a statistic I'm sure you've entirely fabricated) don't let their bigotry affect their hiring process, which is not true. Even if the amount of businesses practicing hiring discrimination against LGBTs is in the minority, it's still possible for enough people to be affected for it to qualify as "a problem," which it obviously does.

In a free society, it's VERY difficult for a bigot to stay in business as the bigot purposely chooses LESS qualified people based on a preconceived illogical notion as well as repulses a segment of the market away from doing business with them. Given in a free-market ANYONE could open up a business and offer a similar product, the bigot will either voluntarily change his behaviors (if not his mind) or go bankrupts.

How would you know if they were discriminating?

But, even so, here's the thing. "Good" and "Bad" doesn't come in a color or sex, it doesn't stay poor or rich. A "Good" Business owner is always worried about the next person they employ will be a "Bad" employee. They want someone they can trust, who is going to work hard to make them a profit and isn't going to sue them. They want to be able to fire this person if they find out they do not make them a profit, may be stealing and do not work hard.

There's nothing about the law that stops an employer from hiring people based on their qualifications or firing them for a lack of effort or for theft. You're reading this law as "Now you can't fire gay or transgender people," which is a ridiculous misinterpretation. If someone thinks they've been discriminated against, they have to show it. It isn't simply assumed.

So, imagine you're a business owner and you hire a gay black woman. You're taking a great legal risk because the government has given "special rights" to blacks, to gays and to women. This means even a "Good" business owner will think twice about taking the chance hiring a gay black woman. Which is a shame as this woman may be the best, hardest working woman and a dream come true. See, it'd be much easier to hire a straight, white, man. That way if he's a waste of space, he can be easily fired and replace with someone else.

It isn't a special right. It's shared by everyone. You can't get passed over for a job simply because you're a white male, either. You're protected as much as anyone else.

Secondly, if an employer passes over a black worker simply because she's black, then he's breaking the law and can be held accountable.

The fact is, this law is going to harm gays and transgenders. Which is a shame.

No, it's going to protect them.

People can boycott companies with owners and managers that act like bigots.

Some do, but only in major cases. Remember Chik-Fil-A? They're still going strong despite their stance against gay rights. This idea that bigots automatically go bankrupt is a fantasy. We all wish it were true, but it isn't.

Using the State to provide groups of people with "Special Rights" is immoral as it violates the non-aggression axiom. Yea, I know, that inner-monkey is hopping up and down with it's stick Ooging and screeching and tossing poo and wanting to 'do something'......... well, too bad. Take it up with Ethics. A peaceful moral Civilization requires a moral society, which means no turning to the Gun at the first sign of clouds.

Whose axiom, and whose morals are we talking about here? I don't have a problem with aggression where I believe it is warranted. I also don't see how this qualifies as aggression. But then, I don't oversimplify things like you do, and I don't reduce every law to violence like you do. In other words, I don't pretend these are simple issues with simple, perfect solutions. I live in the real world. You should visit sometime!

 

[billvon]

Controlled scientific studies suggest those that are the most anti-homosexual, are aroused by same-sex pictures and are in reality committing self-loathing. A child raised peacefully and logically would (A) not be taught some superstitious non-sense about homosexuality being sinful and (B) would understand that anatomically, the brain is wired for sexual preference. Children do not need be taught to desire another sexually, it's largely genetic.

Agreed. However, many children are not raised peacefully and logically, and as adults behave irrationally and hatefully. Thus the occasional need for legislation to protect the victims of these people from discrimination.

Everyone has the same legal rights. Period.

Still not true. Many gays are legally denied the right to marry. This law restores some (not all) of their rights.

Students lower IQ's are systematically discriminated against in various places of employment as well as academic entry. This has been an ongoing act of 'discrimination' for 2000 years (since the Chinese Emperor devised entrance exams for the Mandarins).

Correct. And discriminating against someone based on their fitness for a job is fine. If you want to be a flight attendant, your primary job is to help people evacuate the airplane in the event of an emergency evacuation. If you have no arms or legs you can't physically do that, and cannot perform that job. That is also discrimination, but is based on fitness - and makes sense.

However, if you are gay, you might be physically able to do the job, but be denied the job because the head of the airline's HR department hates faggots. That is what this law is designed to address.

Short people discriminated against in the NBA.

Tyrone Bogues is 5'3". He played in the NBA - because despite his size he was an outstanding basketball player.

The NBA does absolutely discriminate against BAD basketball players, because they are unfit for the job. That's fine; that sort of 'discrimination' is practiced by every employer in the US, and it's how teams/companies/organizations excel.

However, if you are gay, you might be physically able to play basketball very well indeed, but be denied a spot on the team because the coach hates faggots. That is the issue to address.

People with poor eye sight are discriminated against as pilots in the airline industry - as well as for government work in the airforce.

If their sight is so bad that they can't land an airplane well, then yes - they are unfit for the job. Again that's fine. That sort of discrimination could even save lives.

However, if you are gay, you might be physically able to land an airplane, but be denied a job because the chief pilot hates faggots. That is the problem this law addresses.

Are you seeing a pattern yet?

 

[wellwisher]

Say you were a person who rubbed other people the wrong way, thereby impacting the cohesion of a work group. Should the group have to suffer to accommodate this one person? Should gay rights groups be forced to accept the worse bigots, who they know will undermine their unity and bring out their worse? Or is the dual standard in effect? People should have the right to choose, and not be forced into a course of action by law. Liberalism thinks this only applies to their voting base.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Flinging poo never works out well in the long run anyway,

I seem to recall an old saying, "What goes around, comes around."

 

[Michael]

You're wrong twice. First, you're wrong that there's no opposition to this bill. It failed to pass the last time it was introduced, and Speaker Boehner has already spoken out against it. If by "no one" you simply mean people in the streets, that's because bigots are also cowards who aren't going to get in front of cameras and fight for their right to not hire qualified transgender workers based on their gender identity.

I wasn't referring to political opposition, I was talking about society. Socially Americans, Australians, Canadians are overwhelmingly in support of gays, women, blacks, Asians, Jewish, Muslims etc... have the exact same rights as white males. The ONLY real opposition is from demagogues playing to a minority base for votes. Thus this no-issue is made into an issue to divert attention from other real issues, like the NSA, our never ending Wars we wage and lose, and the never ending deficits that suck prosperity from the hands of the young to pay for them.

What you're saying here is that no problem exists because "most business owners" (a statistic I'm sure you've entirely fabricated) don't let their bigotry affect their hiring process, which is not true. Even if the amount of businesses practicing hiring discrimination against LGBTs is in the minority, it's still possible for enough people to be affected for it to qualify as "a problem," which it obviously does.

No, I'm not saying that, I'm stated my position which is that businesses that practice bigotry, if found out, can be dealt with by refusing to do business with them voluntarily and that this is taking the moral high ground. Sure, you don't get the instant gratification of seeing the bigot raked over the coals - tough. You'll have to settle with the satisfaction you acted morally and slowly society will change for the better.

There's nothing about the law that stops an employer from hiring people based on their qualifications or firing them for a lack of effort or for theft. You're reading this law as "Now you can't fire gay or transgender people," which is a ridiculous misinterpretation. If someone thinks they've been discriminated against, they have to show it. It isn't simply assumed.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying everyone enjoys the same rights, no one has 'special rights'.

It should be noted here it's the Government that prevents gay men and women from legally marrying. No one can stop a ceremony from taking place. So, I do agree we need to end these legal discriminatory tax laws (better yes, income tax altogether).

It isn't a special right. It's shared by everyone. You can't get passed over for a job simply because you're a white male, either. You're protected as much as anyone else.

I'm not sure what you're on about here. Special Rights are legal distinctions/regulations/legislations made with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities, or the state recognition of marriage as a group with different taxation than those who are non-married.

An example would be murder. If a man murdered a woman because he hated women/asian/muslim etc... this would be treated differently than if the man simply murdered a woman/asian/muslim etc... for some other reason.

Secondly, if an employer passes over a black worker simply because she's black, then he's breaking the law and can be held accountable.

I'm sorry but here we will have to disagree. If an employer chooses not to hire or promote someone because of their bigotry - that's their bigoted-prerogative. A law isn't going to change this. BUT, when or if this is discovered a moral society acts morally and refuses to do businesses with this person - and by refuses, I mean refuses. No groceries, no electricity, nothing. I promise you, this will be much more effective than attempting to sue them for discrimination. Most bigots are clever people, they don't show their true face and detection is 99.9% impossible. I know because, being a white male, I have to listen to bigots disparage minorities in minor ways some of the time. It happens even from the most educated professors to the blue collar working man. What I do is this: Yes, I see you're point. Then I agree some more - really let them stick their neck out there. Then I mirror back to them their bigotry only I amp it up until the point where I can see they're becoming uncomfortable. If they suggest decreasing immigration, oh, then I'll suggest round-up followed by deportation and ways this may be legally achieved. If they agree with this I may talk about property damage intimidation, etc... at some point they'll say: wait wait wait, I wouldn't go that far. Then we part-ways. Then I arrange to bring my daughter, who isn't white, up to meet them.

I'd watched people be destroyed by their own bigotry when they see her. They self-implode. I have literally seen utter horror race across someone's face when they see my daughter, reverse inwards and literally eat them from the inside out. I'm talking about real retribution here. THAT is how to change people. And society is *gasp* made up of individual people.

Some do, but only in major cases. Remember Chik-Fil-A? They're still going strong despite their stance against gay rights. This idea that bigots automatically go bankrupt is a fantasy. We all wish it were true, but it isn't.

No, it will, but it takes time. Choosing the moral option means being willing to wait it out, lead by example and even forgiving people if and when they do change. It also means, understanding that most people are large-sized children with little childlike minds that were brainwashed into thinking the way they think. Like little autonotoms they never actually achieved any sophisticated level of consciousness and remain big bodied 15 year olds.

See: War on Terror, there was/is immoral America, England, Australia at their finest.

I already explained how a bigot that refuses to do business and hire minorities will in the long-run lose out to someone who is willing to do business and hire minorities. It's simple economics. The problem with Chik-Fil-A is we don't live in a free-market and so it's hard to compete with them. In a free-market the competition for good worker would be fierce and so would the customer base. We don't live in one and so this is going to take much longer - but, if people continue to refuse to do business and stand up for what's moral, Chik-Fil-A WILL go out of business. It may take a generation, but it will happen. OR they'll change their tune and make retribution.

Whose axiom, and whose morals are we talking about here? I don't have a problem with aggression where I believe it is warranted. I also don't see how this qualifies as aggression. But then, I don't oversimplify things like you do, and I don't reduce every law to violence like you do. In other words, I don't pretend these are simple issues with simple, perfect solutions. I live in the real world. You should visit sometime!

I don't like your world. I'd like to see it change from one where aggression against innocent people is see for the repugnance self-defeating circle jerk it is. This means putting down the club like a 15 year old, and sitting down and talking reasonably as adults.

See, I'm pretty sure I actually live in the real world. These ideas may seem 'radical' - but, they're not. It's really very simple. When your mother told you not steal, not to hit, not to play with boy up the street if he's being a jerk - those were lessons you were meant to apply for life.




As a side note, I believe the lack of Free Play may result in more Authoritarianism. Children learn to socialize by NOT have structured sport - it's almost as bad as public schooling in terms of achieving the opposite social outcomes. When children are left with some toys and not rules, they'll spend hours coming up with a game, play for 30-40 min and go home. Parents see this as a failure, because they didn't 'do anything'. In reality, the negotiation - THAT was point of play. I only mention this because you may want to reconsider why you think it'd fine to resort to out-right violence over that of voluntarism - when it's clear the voluntarily withholding social interaction (refusing to play with the jerk) achieves the same ends.


Oh, and studies with children suggest there's evolutionary evidence for the non-aggression axiom having a genetic basis.

 

[Michael]

Agreed. However, many children are not raised peacefully and logically, and as adults behave irrationally and hatefully. Thus the occasional need for legislation to protect the victims of these people from discrimination.

I agree many children are not raised peacefully and logically - thus we as adults need to set the example and do so in a manner that is consistent. Thus, we 'protect' victims by supporting them and refusing to do business (interact) with the bigot. We do not resort the the bigots level (even lower actually) and send some monkey dressed up in a clown suite to club them down and hold them off to a rape cage.

Still not true. Many gays are legally denied the right to marry. This law restores some (not all) of their rights.

Yes, this is a problem made BY the Government. IT shouldn't have concocted ANY laws regarding marriage. IT certainly shouldn't have made it illegal for gays to marry. IT did this because that's IT'S nature - the lowest common denominator.

Correct. And discriminating against someone based on their fitness for a job is fine. If you want to be a flight attendant, your primary job is to help people evacuate the airplane in the event of an emergency evacuation. If you have no arms or legs you can't physically do that, and cannot perform that job. That is also discrimination, but is based on fitness - and makes sense.

Yes, bigotry is irrational and thus it's not possible to provide you with an ideal example. That's the whole point in being bigoted is it's dipshittedness.

Tyrone Bogues is 5'3". He played in the NBA - because despite his size he was an outstanding basketball player.

The NBA does absolutely discriminate against BAD basketball players, because they are unfit for the job. That's fine; that sort of 'discrimination' is practiced by every employer in the US, and it's how teams/companies/organizations excel.

I think I understand your point. As long as there's an objective metric, then for you discrimination is fine from that point on-wards. You're not interested in 'fair' per say, I mean, to be fair, you'd use the State to force all NBA teams to take on a fair representative distribution from society so that there were an equal number of representatives from each 'race' religion ethnicity, height, disability, etc...

So, you're not interested in 'fair' and equality. When you want to see is objectivity. Is that correct? Which is why you favor the IQ test for admission. It's objective, it may preferentially select a particular ethnicity (and does actually) - but that's OK. Because it's an objective.

OK, I disagree with you, but, I understand the point you're making.

However, if you are gay, you might be physically able to do the job, but be denied the job because the head of the airline's HR department hates faggots. That is what this law is designed to address.

Yes, I know what the law is there to address. I'm saying that such a law is immoral because it violates the non-aggression axiom. I'd also maintain it's ineffectual and actually acts to promote more of the very behavior it seeks to address: bigotry. If you think you can legislate bigotry away you're sadly mistaken. For most jobs the skill level isn't THAT important. Social skills and motivation come to mean much more for most jobs. A small or medium business owner can be wiped out with a single bad employee. Sometimes the nuances of 'getting along' in the workplace are subtle. And some people are down-right clueless. Some people like to cause a bit of gossip due to their personality and don't see a problem with stirring the pot. A Business owner will be much more worried about not being able to get rid of someone like that they ALSO have to worry that they may be sued due to the "Special Rights" a particular employee has - they simply won't hire them. It's that simple.

However, if you are gay, you might be physically able to play basketball very well indeed, but be denied a spot on the team because the coach hates faggots. That is the issue to address.

Yes, I understand the argument you're making.

Let me summarize: What you're saying is that it's preferable for the community (where this Coach lives in, is a part of and coaches their sons and daughters) to resort to using the use of State force to coerce this Bigot into taking on a gay teamplayer. Problem solved. So, according to your logic, it's a much better outcome using the threat of force, compared with doing something together as a community like shaming him, firing him and voluntary withholding interaction (including business sales). Nope. State force equals problem solved and the community can look the other way while this closet-bigot is training their sons and daughters - including one he's resentful of who's gay. The community has washed it's hands of him, they will do nothing on their own. They are helpless. Thank the Christian God the State was there to solve the problem using the gun.

Do you suppose that teaching children to immorally resort to coercion of outright violence is preferable to non-violent lessons such as voluntarily withholding interaction? Do you really think that this poor gay student is going to be treated fairly and feel the warmth of love of the community that has just washed their hands of the whole ordeal?

I don't. You just taught those kids to THINK illogically. You tell them to share their toys, not to bully, not to hit, don't throw stones - use your words. AND when push came to shove you did a 180 about face and acted against everything you told them to do. It's like blowing cigarette smoke in their face and telling them not smoke. Sure, you want the best outcome - don't smoke, But holding a cigarette in your hand isn't really the most effective means of getting that message across. AND worse, you acted immorally and taught these children that it's OK to be immoral sometimes.(it should be noted this may be one of the reasons children are NOT taught basic Ethics - Jesus, could you imagine if they started applying some of that shit....)


In many ways, Democracy when used to push a social agenda, undermines the very community/society it was meant to empower. The State (democratic or otherwise) is there to protect private property, uphold the law - society CAN do the rest (provide itself with sound money). But, I fail to see how a society that resorts to violence and coercion can even evolve into the society that follows the non-aggression axiom. Which should be the stated goal OF society. I do think we will progress slowly forward, but with the State wrapped around out neck like a 25kg weight, it's going to be a slow long haul.

 

[Michael]

Say you were a person who rubbed other people the wrong way, thereby impacting the cohesion of a work group. Should the group have to suffer to accommodate this one person? Should gay rights groups be forced to accept the worse bigots, who they know will undermine their unity and bring out their worse? Or is the dual standard in effect? People should have the right to choose, and not be forced into a course of action by law. Liberalism thinks this only applies to their voting base.

I'm not quite sure of your question?

If a person isn't liked by other people, they'll freely refuse to spend their time with him as individuals. I'd be careful of thinking in terms of 'Group' as this can lead to illogical conclusions. There's no Gay Group. There are gay people and they have friends, some of whom are gay and others not. If someone isn't liked due to their bigotry, they'll never form a friendship and that's the end of it. A particular gay person may take time to understand and talk to this gay-hater about their self-loathing, but, at the end of the day, if this person isn't willing to look introspectively, then they won't be welcomed around.

 

[billvon]

I agree many children are not raised peacefully and logically - thus we as adults need to set the example and do so in a manner that is consistent. Thus, we 'protect' victims by supporting them and refusing to do business (interact) with the bigot. We do not resort the the bigots level (even lower actually) and send some monkey dressed up in a clown suite to club them down and hold them off to a rape cage.

Right. And no one was suggesting that.

Yes, bigotry is irrational and thus it's not possible to provide you with an ideal example. That's the whole point in being bigoted is it's dipshittedness.

And its harm done to others.

I think I understand your point. As long as there's an objective metric, then for you discrimination is fine from that point on-wards. You're not interested in 'fair' per say, I mean, to be fair, you'd use the State to force all NBA teams to take on a fair representative distribution from society so that there were an equal number of representatives from each 'race' religion ethnicity, height, disability, etc...

No, again, no one has suggested that.

As is often your approach you are taking a "strawman" approach. Rather than argue the topic, you instead restate the argument in a way that you can win the argument. So instead of discussing legislation to prevent discrimination, you claim that we should not have a monkey in a clown suit rape them. Instead of discussing objective fitness for a job, you claim that we should not have the state force short people to play basketball.

Your approach is intellectually dishonest and reveals an inability to speak rationally about the topic, which is unfortunate.

 

[Balerion]

I wasn't referring to political opposition, I was talking about society. Socially Americans, Australians, Canadians are overwhelmingly in support of gays, women, blacks, Asians, Jewish, Muslims etc... have the exact same rights as white males. The ONLY real opposition is from demagogues playing to a minority base for votes. Thus this no-issue is made into an issue to divert attention from other real issues, like the NSA, our never ending Wars we wage and lose, and the never ending deficits that suck prosperity from the hands of the young to pay for them.

So then it's the "demagogues" you have an issue with, not the people introducing the legislation.

No, I'm not saying that, I'm stated my position which is that businesses that practice bigotry, if found out, can be dealt with by refusing to do business with them voluntarily and that this is taking the moral high ground. Sure, you don't get the instant gratification of seeing the bigot raked over the coals - tough. You'll have to settle with the satisfaction you acted morally and slowly society will change for the better.

Except that doesn't actually work, as evidenced by the fact that LGBTs are still being discriminated against.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying everyone enjoys the same rights, no one has 'special rights'.

No, what you said was that an employer will now not hire a black woman because he can't fire a black woman. That's what you said.

Also, you're not saying that everyone enjoys the same rights. You said explicitly that black women have special rights that prevent them from being fired. Are you trying to say that you think everyone should have equal rights?

I'm not sure what you're on about here. Special Rights are legal distinctions/regulations/legislations made with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities, or the state recognition of marriage as a group with different taxation than those who are non-married.

Except that we all share those rights (with the exception of marriage rights). Neither you or the black woman can be passed over for a job simply because of the color of your skin. These civil rights laws came into being because of the poor treatment of minorities and women, but they protect everyone. You have these rights as well, so they aren't special in any sense.

An example would be murder. If a man murdered a woman because he hated women/asian/muslim etc... this would be treated differently than if the man simply murdered a woman/asian/muslim etc... for some other reason.

And the same would hold true if you were murdered because you were a white Catholic male. It isn't about protecting a certain group, it's about making sure irrelevant, immutable qualities can't be discriminated against, like the color of your skin. It doesn't matter if that skin is yellow, black, white, or green.

I'm sorry but here we will have to disagree. If an employer chooses not to hire or promote someone because of their bigotry - that's their bigoted-prerogative. A law isn't going to change this.

Sure it does. And it has. Programs like Affirmative Action and the Equal Employment Opportunity have lead to an increase in employment, education, and wage earnings of women and minorities. That means it's working. It isn't a cure-all, of course; women and minorities still make less than white males do, on average. But it's better than your solution, which is to allow bigots to run their businesses like bigots and keep women and minorities out of universities and the workforce.

BUT, when or if this is discovered a moral society acts morally and refuses to do businesses with this person - and by refuses, I mean refuses. No groceries, no electricity, nothing. I promise you, this will be much more effective than attempting to sue them for discrimination.

Except it never happens, which is why the problem still exists. Like all of your other ideas, you require magic to have any success. Yes, it sure would be nice if everyone boycotted businesses that have poor practices, but they don't. We gorge ourselves on iPhones made in a factory with such poor working conditions that nets had to be installed to keep the semi-slave labor from leaping to their deaths. We purchase sneakers and designer clothes made by children in sweatshops. We don't give enough of a shit to make a difference with our wallets. That's why legislation is required, and why it's the only successful measure against such awful practices.

No, it will, but it takes time. Choosing the moral option means being willing to wait it out, lead by example and even forgiving people if and when they do change..

No, what it really means is hoping the problem goes away by itself. Because prior to legislation mandating an equal playing field for potential employees, it was really bad out there. We're still recovering, and still striving to reach that goal, but we've only come as far as we have because we've made this practice a legal matter.

I already explained how a bigot that refuses to do business and hire minorities will in the long-run lose out to someone who is willing to do business and hire minorities.

No, you didn't explain anything. You merely made the claim. You've given no practical examples of it actually happening. The most recent example we have of a company being openly bigoted is Chik-Fil-A, and they're doing just fine, even following the boycott that really didn't make a dent in its business.

The problem with Chik-Fil-A is we don't live in a free-market and so it's hard to compete with them.

So by your own admission, your plan of simply not giving them your business doesn't work! What's the point, then?

In a free-market the competition for good worker would be fierce and so would the customer base. We don't live in one and so this is going to take much longer - but, if people continue to refuse to do business and stand up for what's moral, Chik-Fil-A WILL go out of business. It may take a generation, but it will happen. OR they'll change their tune and make retribution.

What evidence do you have to support this theory?

I don't like your world. I'd like to see it change from one where aggression against innocent people is see for the repugnance self-defeating circle jerk it is. This means putting down the club like a 15 year old, and sitting down and talking reasonably as adults.

We all know you don't like the real world, Michael. But who, exactly, is innocent here? Are you saying that the people who discriminate and oppress women and minorities are innocent? Really?

See, I'm pretty sure I actually live in the real world. These ideas may seem 'radical' - but, they're not. It's really very simple. When your mother told you not steal, not to hit, not to play with boy up the street if he's being a jerk - those were lessons you were meant to apply for life.

No one said they were radical, just impractical. Simple? Yeah, too simple. Not everyone's mother tells them not to steal. Some mothers don't impart any life lessons. Others actually help perpetuate the hatred. See, this is the real world I'm talking about; you simply (and childishly) assume that everyone starts at the same place, that everyone will boycott a bigot's store just because you would. It doesn't work that way, and pretending it does is silly. Worse yet, you're speaking out against laws that actually do accomplish something, relying on the insane assertion that law equates to violence and bigots are innocent. The juxtaposition of idiot simplicity and Olympic-level mental gymnastics required to achieve this position of yours is stunning.

As a side note,

I really don't give a shit. Save your non-sequiturs for someone else.

Oh, and studies with children suggest there's evolutionary evidence for the non-aggression axiom having a genetic basis.

What?

 

[Tiassa]

The Problem With Boycotts (At Least, For Me)

The most recent example we have of a company being openly bigoted is Chik-Fil-A, and they're doing just fine, even following the boycott that really didn't make a dent in its business.

Well, it is Chik-Fil-A.

What I mean by that is to suggest a correlation.

That is, it would be dishonest of me to "boycott" Chik-Fil-A for the hatemongering; I don't eat their shitty food, anyway. I've never even been inside one of those places. For me to boycott them?

It's like the current thing about boycotting Ender's Game. I never intended to see the damn movie in the first place. (It's just one of those things I never got into when I was in high school.)

In the CFA case, it might well be that the sort of people who eat that stuff generally prefer their chicken heterosexually certified.

Or ... whatever.

I mean, I can't even boycott football broadcasts for accepting the advertising money; if I was going to do that, I would have done it for the damn cow adverts a couple years ago. Just like I never boycotted FOX for Cleatus.

 

[Michael]

Right. And no one was suggesting that.

Yes you are. As soon as you agree to use the State to enforce a ban on bigotry, you implicitly agree to the State enforce the legality of such a ban by coercion and if need be - physical force. An example is the "War on Drugs". Originally it was meant to 'Help' people hooked on drugs by removing drugs from the market. Fast-forward 30 years and our prisons are chalkerblocked full of non-violent drug addicts being raped by violent inmates who probably love the fact the State keeps sending them innocent people they can abuse on a daily basis.

This isn't a strawman - it really happens.

Suppose there's a person who owns a business who refuses to hire Asians. What are you going to have the State do to enforce your 'Special Rights' Law? This business owner refuses to comply, and prevents any Asians entering his private property - refusing to hire or serve Asians. Just how the hell do you suppose the State is going to deal with this person other than using physical force to arrest him and drag him kicking and screaming off to a rape cage?

I'd like to know.

See, I know how the rest of society will treat him - they'll voluntarily stop patronizing his business and if they also voluntarily stopped trading with him - he'd either change his behaviour or starve to death.

And its harm done to others.

You're using the word harm incorrectly. Anyone can legally have their 'feelings' harmed. It's against the law to physically harm someone.

These are two VERY DIFFERENT actions and it's important we don't confuse the two instances - agreed?

No, again, no one has suggested that.

As is often your approach you are taking a "strawman" approach. Rather than argue the topic, you instead restate the argument in a way that you can win the argument. So instead of discussing legislation to prevent discrimination, you claim that we should not have a monkey in a clown suit rape them. Instead of discussing objective fitness for a job, you claim that we should not have the state force short people to play basketball.

Your approach is intellectually dishonest and reveals an inability to speak rationally about the topic, which is unfortunate

Maybe you need to clarity your example of where you thought NBA discrimination morally acceptable. Because you specifically said it was acceptable to discriminate based on performance. I'm universalizing your suggested course of action. It's utterly pointless to give me an example of the NBA if you're ONLY talking about the NBA. Obviously you are using this as an example of where discrimination is acceptable. Thus, you're not arguing for society to be equitable, if you were you'd suggest making the NBA hire a representative sample of society. When you instead suggest is the NBA hire based on performance.

 

[Michael]

So then it's the "demagogues" you have an issue with, not the people introducing the legislation.

What's the difference again?

Except that doesn't actually work, as evidenced by the fact that LGBTs are still being discriminated against.

So you accept that the evidence suggests Special Rights do nothing to chnage bigotry - yet you still support the immoral position of using the State to enforce special rights? That doesn't make sense. If State force is evidenced not to work, then you should try something else. Perhaps as I suggest, voluntarily refusing to do business and shaming the business owner.

No, what you said was that an employer will now not hire a black woman because he can't fire a black woman. That's what you said.

Also, you're not saying that everyone enjoys the same rights. You said explicitly that black women have special rights that prevent them from being fired. Are you trying to say that you think everyone should have equal rights?

No, I'm saying an employer will think twice about hiring someone with special rights because if the person ends up being an unwanted employee they may have a hard time firing them without be accused of bigotry. Small business may not take the chance. There's good evidence this does happen. Thus, anti-bigotry laws are worse than no law as they create bigoted behaviours in people who otherwise are not bigots. A classic example of the State making something worse when it attempts to fix it. It's like asking a carpenter to perform surgery with a hammer. You'll go from a minor laceration to a broken leg and major laceration.


You said yourself people are still acting bigoted - well, I promise it's not the State that's going to change this. Ask the Iranians, the State can't legislate morality.

StarTrek aired one of the first scenes interracial kissing, where Nyota Uhura and captain Kirk kiss (Plato's Stepchildren), It's art and culture that moves society forward - not some government bureaucracy and certainly not some "Morality Law". I mean Jesus F*cking Christ, you'd think we were living in KSA with you people.

Note: State run BBC pulled this scene, go figure. Thank the Gods we still had somewhat of a first amendment right in the 60s. I'll have to get back to the other questions.

[video=youtube;cDp1sAx09pg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDp1sAx09pg[/video]

 

[Balerion]

What's the difference again?

I'm just trying to find some consistency in your position.

So you accept that the evidence suggests Special Rights do nothing to chnage bigotry

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you could read at an adult level. I see I was mistaken. Let me simplify it for you: The addition of legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or sexual identity is not a "special right." The law applies to everyone, not just LGBTs, so there is nothing special about it. Laws of this nature are not only necessary, but they're also very successful. As I stated in my previous post, since the civil rights movement of the 1960s resulted in laws protecting people from being discriminated against based on their race, gender, color or creed, the amount of women and minorities receiving higher educations and work has increased, as has their pay rate as compared to white males. The bottom line is that these laws work.

- yet you still support the immoral position of using the State to enforce special rights? That doesn't make sense. If State force is evidenced not to work, then you should try something else. Perhaps as I suggest, voluntarily refusing to do business and shaming the business owner.

Perhaps a night class at the community college could help you with your comprehension issues.

No, I'm saying an employer will think twice about hiring someone with special rights because if the person ends up being an unwanted employee they may have a hard time firing them without be accused of bigotry

Then they are breaking the law and can be held accountable for it.

Small business may not take the chance. There's good evidence this does happen. Thus, anti-bigotry laws are worse than no law as they create bigoted behaviours in people who otherwise are not bigots. A classic example of the State making something worse when it attempts to fix it. It's like asking a carpenter to perform surgery with a hammer. You'll go from a minor laceration to a broken leg and major laceration.

Claims without supporting evidence are worthless. Affirmative Action and the EEOC have increased the amount of minorities and women in the workforce. What you're suggesting is that this isn't true. Well, make with the "good evidence."

You said yourself people are still acting bigoted - well, I promise it's not the State that's going to change this.

As you know, the state already has changed this. The numbers prove it. Your method--which is to do nothing at all--is the reason we are in this position to begin with. Allowing people to act upon their prejudices as they pertain to race, sexuality, or gender are exactly why there was a civil rights movement to begin with. We already tried it your way, Michael.

Ask the Iranians, the State can't legislate morality.

Of course it can. What do you think laws against pedophilia, rape, murder, and theft are? On what basis were the slaves freed if not a moral one?

StarTrek aired one of the first scenes interracial kissing, where Nyota Uhura and captain Kirk kiss (Plato's Stepchildren), It's art and culture that moves society forward - not some government bureaucracy and certainly not some "Morality Law". I mean Jesus F*cking Christ, you'd think we were living in KSA with you people.

No one's suggesting the government is the moral center of society. But it does play a role. And society decided that it wasn't just going to allow bigots and similar scumbags to oppress people. The only effective measure against oppression is law. It wasn't protest that integrated the school system, it was law. It wasn't protest that frightened universities into admitting women and minorities, it was law. You seem unwilling to admit this, but that has no bearing on anything other than your own delusion: The law works. No, it hasn't completely halted bigoted practices, but it's reversed the trend and made significant ground by giving a chance to people who wouldn't have one if the assholes were left to their own devices.

Again, this is reality.

 

[Magical Realist]

Oregon already has a law against discrimination by businesses based on sexual orientation. And the law works. Over the past few years several instances of discrimination have prompted legal action. Two lesbians were kicked out of a cab for kissing. A bakery in Gresham refused to provide a gay couple a wedding cake. Etc. What's interesting about these cases is not only they are prosecuted in behalf of the plaintiffs by the state, but they instantly received national media attention, serving to demonstrate to all businesses the consequences of discrimination. Not being discriminated against is NOT a "special right". It is a basic human right all people have in our society. The fact that laws still have to be passed to protect certain classes from being discriminated against is a statement about the sorry state of affairs of our society in general.

 

[spidergoat]

Michael is obviously ignorant of the past situation of the Jim Crow south. Discrimination was legal and just about everyone did it. They didn't care about minority business, since in serving them equally, they would lose majority business.

 

[pjdude1219]

nother bigot in the libertarian movement

 

[Michael]

I'm just trying to find some consistency in your position.

And likewise.

I have a couple questions, I'll use the coffee example to ask them.

Person A owns coffee
Person B is a barista
Person C drinks coffee

A pays B to make coffee.
B sells labor to A in exchange for making coffee.
C pays A for coffee made by B.

If I understand your argument correctly it's this: A cannot stop paying B to make coffee for a reason of bigotry alone? (religion, gender, sexual preference, or so-called 'race')
Is this correct?

Questions:
(1) Suppose A just doesn't like B. For no particular reason. Can A stop paying B to make coffee?
(2) Suppose B doesn't like A, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can B stop selling their labor to A?
(3) Suppose C doesn't like A, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can C stop paying A for coffee made by B?
(4) Suppose C doesn't like B, because they are a racist homophobic misogynist. Can C stop paying A for coffee made by B?