But that is not quite what is being discussed. Individuals are free to feel however they want about any group of people that they want. The topic at hand is should they be allowed to deny services to a group of people based on those feelings?
So long as it is not directly harmful, and so long as they are prepared to face the socioeconomic consequences of their actions, I believe they are at liberty to act upon their views and deny service.
They may be wrong to do so, but they can do so if they choose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.
Think about that for a second.
Contributor
|
Technically, what falls within "religious freedom"? In theory, couldn't an individual claim "religious freedom" as a reason to deny service to African-Americans as well? It seems like the alternative is a government decision about your religious teachings...No.. the alternative is the existing standard, a non-discrimination clause which prohibits discrimination on the basis of creed, gender, race, etc.
I see. Then what is the purpose of bills like this? Do they allow people to exercise "religious freedom", even where it includes infringement on protected classes? If so, and if LGBT are protected (a big assumption), then it seems as though the two are in conflict - hence statements about the Supreme Court striking the law down.
And technically, the nondiscrimination clause is a limitation on religious freedom... albeit in the same way "fire in a crowded theatre" is a limitation on free speech.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.
Think about that for a second.
It looks more like he's saying "we should prevent those who are wrong from being legally allowed to do harm to others". I am not him, though, so I may have misinterpreted. :)
Nope. People can be wrong all they want...until that wrongness impacts someone else.You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.
Think about that for a second.
More to the point, who decides who is "wrong" on these matters? From an objective standpoint.
"I hate black people" is an opinion. It is a bigoted opinion, but it isn't "wrong". You can't prove to the man that he does not, in fact, hate black people.
Perhaps it is morally wrong, but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok ... starting my petition to get GenCon to come to Seattle ...
Too late! Been bombarding their Facebook page since this afternoon with bids to come to San Francisco.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a straw man. You do not know where I would stand on the issue of discrimination against African-Americans in the 50s and 60s, as the issues are not directly equivalent, no matter how much one may treat like they are.
You are right, they aren't directly equivalent. Racial segregation assured that (substandard) accommodation would exist for "colored" people. No similar assurance exists within this law for LGBT people, allowing them to be de jure exiled.
|
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. People can be wrong all they want...until that wrongness impacts someone else.You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.
Think about that for a second.
More to the point, who decides who is "wrong" on these matters? From an objective standpoint.
"I hate black people" is an opinion. It is a bigoted opinion, but it isn't "wrong". You can't prove to the man that he does not, in fact, hate black people.
Perhaps it is morally wrong, but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).
People in the US are free to hate any race they want. They may not deny persons of that race the service offered by their private business based on that hate.
A huge "thank you" to the morality police.
|
Contributor
|
Nope. People can be wrong all they want...until that wrongness impacts someone else.You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.
Think about that for a second.
More to the point, who decides who is "wrong" on these matters? From an objective standpoint.
"I hate black people" is an opinion. It is a bigoted opinion, but it isn't "wrong". You can't prove to the man that he does not, in fact, hate black people.
Perhaps it is morally wrong, but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).
I think it would be no worse than the opposite, as long as we're dealing in extremes. :)
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. People can be wrong all they want...until that wrongness impacts someone else.You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.
Think about that for a second.
More to the point, who decides who is "wrong" on these matters? From an objective standpoint.
"I hate black people" is an opinion. It is a bigoted opinion, but it isn't "wrong". You can't prove to the man that he does not, in fact, hate black people.
Perhaps it is morally wrong, but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).
Clearly, nobody is wrong about whether or not they HAVE an opinion. That's just dodging the subject. Everybody has an opinion. We all know that.
But I call BS on the old, tired, lame, wrong-headed argument that keeping jerks in line makes the rest of us the bad guys. An editorial on CNN recently opined that people ought to be allowed to think and say all the stupid crap in their minds, and then they ought to have to face the consequences for doing so. And I totally agree with that.
But when you make that thought and that speech into a physical thing that affects the lives of others, you are crossing a line. You are now doing real harm in the world. And there is nothing - no phony "objectivity" shield in the world, you can hide behind, that will make that okay or mitigate your guilt. Objectivity is great for science, and it's all nice and well in an online argument. But in the end, we human beings HAVE to set standards and we HAVE to agree upon a mutually understood standard of respect and civility, or we won't last as a species.
Did everybody here take Critical Thinking 101? Yep. We all are duly impressed with each other's ability to debate objectivity and subjectivity until we're blue in the face. Hoorah - we're so damned smart.
So what?
How does that apply to actual human beings? How would you like it to be applied to YOU?
And by the way, this "Freedom of Religion" nonsense isn't new. Back in the 1960s an almost identically-named law was floated (and killed by the Supreme Court), based on the right of Christians to freely practice their religion by discriminating against, and banning black people from businesses, on the basis that the Bible advocates slavery, amongst other awfulness, and so they ought to have the right to avoid them, blah, blah, blah...
My response to this is simple: if you're not adult enough to be a part of the human race, you don't have to. Stay at home with your doors boarded up. Pout in your closet all you want. But the rest of us have every right to make the world better for ourselves. ALL of us. And we're too far along as a species to keep acting like little children.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this whole bill is terrible. I would dread having to go into Indiana and see anything resembling a "Straights Only" sign hanging in a restaurant window. Because then I'd be obliged to vandalize it in a million different ways, and I'm too pretty for jail/fines.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.
So is government interference in private matters.
When two good ideas collide...
There's a bit of a difference between not passing this law, and people actually advocating making it illegal for someone to hold an opinion, which was actually presented up thread.
I'm not planning on touching the discussion on the law in the OP with a 10 foot pole. That discussion will go where it always goes.
Some guy: "I don't know, this doesn't seem so bad."
Some Other Guy: "What? You racist/misogynistic/bigoted/big dumb doody head! Of course it's the worst thing in the world!"
Some Guy #3:
"What? This is the best idea ever! More power to the corporations!"*Guy 2 and Guy 3 proceed to throw down with all manner of pertinent discussion, such as whose mom is a bigger whore*
But the number of people advocating a thought police in this thread is disturbing in and of itself.
I think people have clarified the original, somewhat poorly-phrased statement pretty clearly. You are allowed to hold an opinion. You are not allowed to exert that opinion on others in a tangible fashion, such as denying them service or refusing them a job or running them over with a bus.
Yeah, this whole bill is terrible. I would dread having to go into Indiana and see anything resembling a "Straights Only" sign hanging in a restaurant window. Because then I'd be obliged to vandalize it in a million different ways, and I'm too pretty for jail/fines.
The whole thing about this bill that is baffling is that as near as I can tell it would have little to no effect on 90% of businesses.
Namely, any business that doesn't have access to the personal records of the people who walk in.
Some cafe puts up a "Straights Only" sign and...what? Did somebody invent an actual, literal Gaydar while I wasn't looking?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Businesses which serve the general public are not private matters, even if owned by individuals.
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.So is government interference in private matters.
When two good ideas collide...
I don't see that argument. I understand the long history of discrimination that made the decision neccesary and had hoped we'd (ironically) be not racist enough to allow people discriminate by this point. I have a serious problem with "you must" type laws rather than "you must not" type laws.
While not as prevelant as "do I be lawful or good?" the question of "do i be chaotic or good?" does come up on occasion.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this whole bill is terrible. I would dread having to go into Indiana and see anything resembling a "Straights Only" sign hanging in a restaurant window. Because then I'd be obliged to vandalize it in a million different ways, and I'm too pretty for jail/fines.The whole thing about this bill that is baffling is that as near as I can tell it would have little to no effect on 90% of businesses.
Namely, any business that doesn't have access to the personal records of the people who walk in.
Some cafe puts up a "Straights Only" sign and...what? Did somebody invent an actual, literal Gaydar while I wasn't looking?
Other signs that would be allowed under this law:
NO JEWS
NO CHRISTIANS
NO MUSLIMS
NO PROTESTANTS
NO CATHOLICS
NO SUNNIS
NO SHIITES
NO SUFIS
NO ATHEISTS
NO BUDDHISTS
NO ZEN BUDDHISTS
NO MORMONS
You get the point. For many of those, the business owner has no way of discerning if a potential customer meets the requirements for discrimination. So a potential customer has the choice to deny their group affiliation to obtain the service of the business. For Christians in particular, this is a fairly damaging prospect. (Matthew 10:33)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Businesses which serve the general public are not private matters, even if owned by individuals.
Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.So is government interference in private matters.
When two good ideas collide...
I don't see that argument. I understand the long history of discrimination that made the decision neccesary and had hoped we'd (ironically) be not racist enough to allow people discriminate by this point. I have a serious problem with "you must" type laws rather than "you must not" type laws.
While not as prevelant as "do I be lawful or good?" the question of "do i be chaotic or good?" does come up on occasion.
Fortunately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 disagrees with you. That act makes the distinction between businesses which are public and those that are private. (An FLGS is public, a gaming club might be private.)
Yeah, this whole bill is terrible. I would dread having to go into Indiana and see anything resembling a "Straights Only" sign hanging in a restaurant window. Because then I'd be obliged to vandalize it in a million different ways, and I'm too pretty for jail/fines.
The sad thing is they can already put up that sign without this bill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some cafe puts up a "Straights Only" sign and...what? Did somebody invent an actual, literal Gaydar while I wasn't looking?
apparently they're either wearing a hat or have their hair cut like.. well... .
:) (nsfw)
You are not allowed to exert that opinion on others in a tangible fashion
Yet, that's precisely what laws are. Furthermore, simple regulatory policy is often set by little more than mere whim by single individuals yet carry much more impact on our day to day lives. Dozens of rules are proposed and passed pretty much daily.
For yesterday, Tuesday, alone there were 117 notices and 8 proposed new rules. Check it out.
The whole thing about this bill that is baffling is that as near as I can tell it would have little to no effect on 90% of businesses.
Namely, any business that doesn't have access to the personal records of the people who walk in.
Some cafe puts up a "Straights Only" sign and...what? Did somebody invent an actual, literal Gaydar while I wasn't looking?
The stifling effect on behavior alone makes it a terrible idea. A business owner doesn't need to know what you are in a factual manner. A bit of body language, the slightest look at your partner, etc. could be sufficient grounds for you to be ejected. That's a horrible regime to live under regardless if it doesn't "typically" have any effect on you.
You get the point. For many of those, the business owner has no way of discerning if a potential customer meets the requirements for discrimination. So a potential customer has the choice to deny their group affiliation to obtain the service of the business. For Christians in particular, this is a fairly damaging prospect. (Matthew 10:33)
So, once again, it sucks to belong to a religion that involves strict religious garb.
The sign was more of a metaphor, but I could see it being placed in catering/wedding houses. As well as the windows of any business that tends to require personal information. Ooh, divorce attorneys!
It's not smart business, but bigotry ain't a very smart business to begin with. That doesn't mean this needs to be tolerated.
Fortunately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 disagrees with you. That act makes the distinction between businesses which are public and those that are private. (An FLGS is public, a gaming club might be private.)
Probably a good thing in this specific incidence, but the expansion of interstate trade to be, well, everything, and of a private club to be effectively nothing, has taken a good idea a little too far.
You are not allowed to exert that opinion on others in a tangible fashionYet, that's precisely what laws are. Furthermore, simple regulatory policy is often set by little more than mere whim by single individuals yet carry much more impact on our day to day lives. Dozens of rules are proposed and passed pretty much daily.
And, speaking completely distinctly from this original conversation for a moment, that is exactly what the original 14th Amendment exists to prevent. It states that laws cannot be placed to target people based on certain traits.
I'm not using that part of the amendment to say this law isn't okay (other parts of it declare that much clearer), but it's a specific exception to the "imposing beliefs" thing. "Bigotry is bad" is a sanctioned belief that the law is explicitly allowed to enforce in certain ways.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get the point. For many of those, the business owner has no way of discerning if a potential customer meets the requirements for discrimination. So a potential customer has the choice to deny their group affiliation to obtain the service of the business. For Christians in particular, this is a fairly damaging prospect. (Matthew 10:33)
So, once again, it sucks to belong to a religion that involves strict religious garb.
The sign was more of a metaphor, but I could see it being placed in catering/wedding houses. As well as the windows of any business that tends to require personal information. Ooh, divorce attorneys!
It's not smart business, but bigotry ain't a very smart business to begin with. That doesn't mean this needs to be tolerated.
To be clear, I agree with you.
I was trying to point out that "just deny that part of your identity" is patently offensive. Christians should find this especially offensive, as doing so has grave religious consequences for that community.
Yeah, I was just building (and then responding to Rynjin's analysis).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of my opinion of the law in question (I think it's a backwards heaps of stinking trash wrapped in silk) I find the cons' reaction to it amusingly ironic -
Gencon: "Wait, are you passing a law that allows people to refuse to do business with someone they find offensive?
Indiana: "Why, yes, this is about personal freedom!"
Gencon: "We find this law offensive, and will consider refusing to do business with you because of that."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, what is the point of this bill? Isn't this already covered by the "right to refuse service to anyone" thing?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of my opinion of the law in question (I think it's a backwards heaps of stinking trash wrapped in silk) I find the cons' reaction to it amusingly ironic -
Gencon: "Wait, are you passing a law that allows people to refuse to do business with someone they find offensive?
Indiana: "Why, yes, this is about personal freedom!"
Gencon: "We find this law offensive, and will consider refusing to do business with you because of that."
There's a vast difference between judging someone for what they are and judging them for what they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I am wondering is why there is a need(see *) to sign a contract to hold a convention, and what does Gencon(the company) get out of it?
*I understand that it might not be a "need", but more of a business arrangement for the company and the state, but I am still curious.
|
|
What I am wondering is why there is a need(see *) to sign a contract to hold a convention, and what does Gencon(the company) get out of it?
*I understand that it might not be a "need", but more of a business arrangement for the company and the state, but I am still curious.
This is just a wild guess, but they probably get tax relief, promotional consideration, police support, traffic support, emergency services support, public transportation allowances, fast-tracking of permits, etc.
but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).
I mustn't have been paying attention. What's going on over here? What's Australia going to look like in 20 years, apart form being more crowded and sun-blasted?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man do I dislike libertarians
The problem isn't libertarians. The problem is the way people will selectively switch liberrtarianism on or off the second it goes against them without acknowledging that, usually when our expensive overseas adventures comes up.
Getting legal precedent to exclude a specific community.
Ok, but like I said isn't it already covered by the right to refuse service to anyone? Isn't this just going to allow them to point at a different sign in the window?
but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).I mustn't have been paying attention. What's going on over here? What's Australia going to look like in 20 years, apart form being more crowded and sun-blasted?
Well, I could raise concerns about the tasmanian devil populations...really, it's concerning.
Ivan, this is what you're talking about.
Basically, from what I can see, you have to give a reason to refuse service. And if the reason's not plausible, or is clearly bigoted (I don't want to let gay parents drop their kids off at my daycare because they might infect the other kids), you have a problem.
|
|
There's a vast difference between judging someone for what they are and judging them for what they do.Regardless of my opinion of the law in question (I think it's a backwards heaps of stinking trash wrapped in silk) I find the cons' reaction to it amusingly ironic -
Gencon: "Wait, are you passing a law that allows people to refuse to do business with someone they find offensive?
Indiana: "Why, yes, this is about personal freedom!"
Gencon: "We find this law offensive, and will consider refusing to do business with you because of that."
Agreed, and let me rehash that I fully support Gencon and am wholeheartedly hoping that the anti gay law does not pass.
By the way, anti gay movements are usually aware of this. Many of them try to claim that sexual orientation is not an inherent parts of a person, but rather a choice, which they can then proceed to call unethical according to their religion.
"I'm just saying, makeup technology has come very far in recent years, and it's not that expensive, either..." —Probably somebody at some point.
but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).I mustn't have been paying attention. What's going on over here? What's Australia going to look like in 20 years, apart form being more crowded and sun-blasted?
What the hell is Rynjin babbling on about.... Main problem is marriage equality, but that is not far away. Heck they are even talking about legalising medical marijuana in Queensland the most redneck of our states...