Yes, you've expressed your beliefs ad nauseam. Thanks for doing so again tho.
Advertisement
by Telconi » Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:59 pm
by Panem and Circensis » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:06 pm
by Telconi » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:13 pm
Panem and Circensis wrote:Why are there so many idiots advocating for discrimination?
So, as you can already tell, my answer is no. This is because if, let us say, a baker refuses to sell to a gay man because he believes a 2,000-year-old manuscript detailing the exploits of an invisible man in the sky, than that would be discrimination? If your “right to discriminate” guidelines were applied, this would be perfectly legal, despite being unethical. Too many people might use the line that their business was “non-essential” if there was vague legal wording. Many minorities would not be able to get jobs or housing, and live as second-rate citizens.
The amount of right-wing trolls on the Internet sometimes stuns me. What’s next? A “right to lynch black people”? A “right to torture Muslims”? A “right to slavery of all non-white races”? Where does it end?
These Nazis essentially are mad that their monopoly on economic, political, and military power through imperial exploitation has come to an end. Honestly, they are very pathetic.
In conclusion, however, too many people would use that right and too many people might use vague legal wording in order to get what they want. It would also erase decades of work in trying to get past racial and minority discrimination, and chuck it into the ash heap of history.
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:36 pm
San Lumen wrote:Galloism wrote:Well, in the case of the extant district court case, he was interviewed by the paper as a minister of the Church of Creativity (which, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, is hilariously named).
Then he was demoted so he wouldn't have a supervisory position over black people. This meant a cut in pay, job title, and job prestige.
He won his discrimination case because you can't demote someone based on their religion.
religion is protected class though i must say I'm surprised those crazy people are recognized as a religion
by San Lumen » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:21 pm
Thermodolia wrote:San Lumen wrote:religion is protected class though i must say I'm surprised those crazy people are recognized as a religion
It shouldn’t be. You can’t change you ethnicity, your race, your DNA, or your sexuality but you can change your religion and your politics and they shouldn’t be apart of the protected classes
by Uelvan » Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:12 pm
Galloism wrote:Uelvan wrote:
The guy who wrote it did. Again I quote from an interview I linked earlier, if shitty blogs are evidence you're willing to accept:
“We are a Christian Identity group, it is important to make us a church; I’m as much a Presbyterian or a Baptist or a Methodist or anything like that. I have the right to ordain just as anyone because I’m a legal church,” said Ray Larsen
The Southern Poverty Article you referenced said that they had offended their own Klansmen by butchering a pig (a big no-no in Christian Identity). It also mentions Rey Larsen as the successor. Unless you mean to tell me there just so happens to be another Rey Larsen who just so happens to lead another Church of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
ADL mentioned: "Eli James, a minister in the Christian Identity movement, a virulently anti-Semitic religion that espouses the belief that Jews and non-whites are "mud people" and the literal spawns of the devil. James also leads the Church of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a Chicago-based group."
The KKK categorically falls under Christian Identity inwhich the National Church of the KKK is a subsection of the broader KKK: http://faculty.uml.edu/jyurcak/44.326/C ... 0Pt%201%20[Compatibility%20Mode].pdf
How about this. You find me proof they are trying to be their own distinct religion and not adherents to Christian Identity.
Ok, I'll go with the Christian Identity group.
Which leads us back to being able to discriminate against southern baptists, so long as other baptists are cool.
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:28 pm
by Elwher » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:51 pm
San Lumen wrote:Elwher wrote:
Your hypothetical is missing many salient points, as is often the case with them.
First, was this policy made known to the bookers, either explicitly or by some notice so that a reasonable person would have been aware of it at booking time?
Was the reservation made in person? by phone? on the Internet? It makes a difference as to the prior knowledge of the policy, and the customer's knowing acceptance of it.
Second, are the couple married? And if not, would the hotel rent a room with one bed to an unmarried heterosexual customer?
These are all factors that would enter into the question of right and wrong, as well as legal or illegal.
Lets say it wasn't and it was made on the internet as most bookings likely are these days.
Why does it matter if they are married? Martial status should not matter when it comes to a hotel room.
by Western Vale Confederacy » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:00 pm
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:04 pm
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:07 pm
by Kowani » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:12 pm
Thermodolia wrote:Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Religious folk using their religion as harmful excuses (such denying vaccines or treatment) should definitely be overridden, yes.
That’s also not counting the fact that you can change your religion but you can’t change your sexuality or your disabilities.
by Galloism » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:26 pm
Uelvan wrote:Galloism wrote:Ok, I'll go with the Christian Identity group.
Which leads us back to being able to discriminate against southern baptists, so long as other baptists are cool.
Why would you be able to discriminate against Southern Baptists as a whole? Just as you can not discriminate against Christian Identity as a whole. You'd have to go through the effort to find alternative reasons to deny a congregation service in either case. It just so happens that more Christian Identity groups tend to lean towards one extreme end of the political spectrum which often espouses violence. Though I did not dig deep enough, I'd say that Euro Folk Radio is an example.
by Galloism » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:31 pm
by Kowani » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:33 pm
by Galloism » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:48 pm
by Kowani » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:50 pm
by Kowani » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:50 pm
by Galloism » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:53 pm
by Uelvan » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:08 am
Galloism wrote:Uelvan wrote:
Why would you be able to discriminate against Southern Baptists as a whole? Just as you can not discriminate against Christian Identity as a whole. You'd have to go through the effort to find alternative reasons to deny a congregation service in either case. It just so happens that more Christian Identity groups tend to lean towards one extreme end of the political spectrum which often espouses violence. Though I did not dig deep enough, I'd say that Euro Folk Radio is an example.
Because they're not a religion, just a chapter of another religion, so they do not get protection. They don't differentiate themselves as a separate religion just by being a separate organization.
by Estanglia » Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:16 am
San Lumen wrote:Estanglia wrote:The answer is yes.
End of case.
Telling people not to talk about something, especially when there are legitimate arguments for and against it, isn't a good way to get people to agree with you.
And saying 'EVERYONE AGREES' when the very existence of people posting on this thread proves it wrong is another terrible argument.
And, before you rest your case, maybe you should argue it. Just a thought.
How so? They all involve discrimination in associations. What makes the latter quite different from any of the former?
They certainly are.
Why? What's so evil about that?
How, and why, does one have a right to service?
And I don't think you know what discrimination is if you think those aren't discrimination.
Discrimination would be Jim Crow or treating Muslims or black customers differently than white customers
British Tackeettlaus wrote:TURTLESHROOM II wrote:The public sector should always be barred from any form of discrimination. Likewise, any private institution that provides emergency, lifegiving, or neccesary services, like medicine, electricity, food, water or telecommunications, etc. should never be allowed to discriminate.
However, any private business that provides non-vital services or luxuries should be allowed to refuse service, or outright discriminate, to any person or any group for any reason, or even no reason.
I, as a consumer and part of a Free Market, likewise have the right to never do business with said discriminatory establishment. For example, I will not dine at a restaurant that prohibits blacks from entering or eating there. I wouldn't want to work for a company that says Christians, or whites, or whatever else cannot get a job.
Allowing institutions to discriminate will not suddenly revive Jim Crow, which was mandatory discrimination imposed by the state. The Free Market exists and people's attitudes have changed; we have become better human beings since then. A business dumb enough to arbitrarily exclude a group they don't like won't exist for long.
Letting bars and restaurants bar black people again normalises racism. And sadly they would probably still get plenty of business.
I don't think there should be a a right to discriminate for businesses, I don't think this is such a big deal, or an infringement on anyone's freedom. Rather the opposite!
San Lumen wrote:TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
It's a PRIVATE business. Unless I am providing a service essential to society or human life, I shoudl be allowed, under any circumstances, to say no.
I certainly wouldn't go to a business like that! I don't want to give my money to idiots!
I love Alabama jokes as much as the next guy, but despite what the propaganda claims, the status of race relations in Dixie has changed tremendously since the Jim Crow era. While things can be tense, we're largely at peace; why else do you think so many of the riots and shootings after every racially charged incident are in places like Chicago, Illinois, or other Yankee cities? Baltimore, another problem hot spot, is technically part of the South, but I don't consider Maryland to be under the Mason-Dixon Line.
Yes. I don't care about their feelings or experience, and neither should the hotel. The couple is not entitled to a room or seeing a wedding. It's THEIR hotel, THEIR land, THEIR rooms, and THEIR choice. The law should never be based on hurt feelings. (BTW, sexual orientation is not a protected class in most states because it is a choice to openly participate in a sexual lifestyle, even though sexual orientation is innate.)
A hotel room is not a right or something guaranteed by the state. It is a service and no one should be forced to serve a person they do not want to serve. If the group was Christian and the hotel said they don't accomodate Christians, I would be saying the exact same thing. NO EXCEPTIONS.
However, in your exact circumstances, the hotel might be viable for a lawsuit. Why? -because the hotel already made the transaction to book them. They committed to a binding agreement to reserve a certain number of rooms to a certain number of guests for their wedding. This means, unless they've specifically written their terms of service to say "a booked room can be revoked at-will", they could be sued for breach of contract.
If I were landlord, I'd refuse tenancy to an unmarried man and woman who shack up (cohabitation) and to "married", open homosexuals because I don't want to be the one that facilitates what, in my religion, is considered sexual sin on my land. Indeed, under American law (or at least in my state), you can ask voluntary questions about race, marital status, or what-not, but you cannot legally require them to answer it. I should have that right, as I own the land.
(Fun fact: the standard for discrimination in the USA is extremely strict and requires demonstrable evidence of ill will and specific targetting of a protected group. This is worked around by documenting petty wrongdoings of the employee you don't like and firing them on those reasons. Or, you can assign them work they hate or make them do extra work until they quite; this is how the schoolhouse my mother worked at got rid of a bad teacher. IIRC, only around eighteen percent of discrimination cases processed are accepted becaue of the standard of evidence being so strict.)
It can be fairly argued that private sector non-discrimination was originally neccesary to break Jim Crow, but that was sixty years ago and the times have shifted significantly. We've gone from cruelly and wronfly oppresing blacks to teaching whites to hate themselves (sorry, "dismantling white supremacy") and for blacks calling to reinstate segregation.
America is not what she once was. We have changed for the better, and most Americans, in terms of race relations, are better human beings than the days of old. I'm proud to see that society has changed on this regard.
A world where freedom of association in the private sector was actually respected would not be a world where everything is segregated. That's a fantasy equal to arguing that re-legalizing child labor would lead back to bound to ropes pulling coal tubs through narrow tunnels, as if safety standards don't exist.
I have news for you a business is public property.
Anyone as long as they are not disruptive can enter as long as it is not an exclusive club with member like Costco or yacht club for example. Any business that is not paid membership does not have the right to pick and choose their customers.
Panem and Circensis wrote:Why are there so many idiots advocating for discrimination?
So, as you can already tell, my answer is no. This is because if, let us say, a baker refuses to sell to a gay man because he believes a 2,000-year-old manuscript detailing the exploits of an invisible man in the sky, than that would be discrimination?
If your “right to discriminate” guidelines were applied, this would be perfectly legal, despite being unethical.
Too many people might use the line that their business was “non-essential” if there was vague legal wording. Many minorities would not be able to get jobs or housing, and live as second-rate citizens.
The amount of right-wing trolls on the Internet sometimes stuns me.
What’s next? A “right to lynch black people”? A “right to torture Muslims”? A “right to slavery of all non-white races”?
Where does it end?
These Nazis essentially are mad that their monopoly on economic, political, and military power through imperial exploitation has come to an end. Honestly, they are very pathetic.
Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"
by Galloism » Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:01 am
Uelvan wrote:Galloism wrote:Because they're not a religion, just a chapter of another religion, so they do not get protection. They don't differentiate themselves as a separate religion just by being a separate organization.
Not how it works. The Klan is not a sect of Christian Identity. Do you really fail to understand the difference between an individual Church and a sect? This is literally middle-school level of education.
by Thermodolia » Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:24 am
by Thermodolia » Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:29 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: -Abrahamia-, Aadhiris, Ameriganastan, Atrito, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Daphomir, Dresderstan, Emotional Support Crocodile, Godular, Hidrandia, HISPIDA, Ifreann, Outer Bratorke, Philjia, San Lumen, Sarduri, Shrillland, Uiiop, Unmet Player
Advertisement