It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Attitudes may have to be forced in the beginning...

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Even though I agree with antidiscrimination laws your statement on majority rule and democratic republic are all twisted.


This is a constitutional republic with a democratically elected congress.

If majority was rule for rule none of the antidiscrimination laws would have ever taken hold.

The system is set up so that the minority are protected from the majority. Equality is what we strive for.


The Majority are the protectors of the Constitution, and when the Majority decides the Constitution needs to be changed, we change it. The Majority protects the Minorities from those that would see them harm.


Again you are twisting meanings by saying majority. Amendments to the constitution can only proposed by two thirds of both houses or three-fourths of the states in both cases that would be done by elected officials. When we speak of the majority or minority that would generally refer to the citizens. The majority of citizens can be opposed to such amendments or support amendments it is our elected officials which would have the say in the matter.




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Again you are twisting meanings by saying majority. Amendments to the constitution can only proposed by two thirds of both houses or three-fourths of the states in both cases that would be done by elected officials. When we speak of the majority or minority that would generally refer to the citizens. The majority of citizens can be opposed to such amendments or support amendments it is our elected officials which would have the say in the matter.


Congress must call an Article V Convention if 38 state legislatures demand it happen, completely bypassing Congress. As each state has it's own rules on how to apply for an Article V Convention, many of the states simply require a ballot initiative that would then be passed at the next legislative session.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: TheArrow

Well then, billions upon billions.


2/3 of the world are lower than slightly above average intelligence.

It's a scary concept.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
nm....

edit on 14-1-2015 by Jakal26 because: didn't realize the thread was this long and don't want to reply to what I did from page 1 now.... meh.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I have read the many responses to my rant and I still stand by my statement from the original OP.




I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything against their beliefs or will.


I would venture that FORCING people will actually create a backlash.
edit on 2015/1/14 by Metallicus because: eta



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Metallicus

I have read the many responses to my rant and I still stand by my statement from the original OP.




I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything against their beliefs or will.


I would venture that FORCING people will actually create a backlash.


You don't think anyone should be forced to do ANYTHING? I don't think you really mean that. How about being forced to follow laws, like not killing or stealing? What if someone claims their religious beliefs allow them to cut off the head of someone that doesn't agree with them?

You shouldn't be allowed to do things that take away someone else's right. People have a right to not be discriminated against based on simply who they are - their race or their sexual orientation.

By the way, thanks for making a thread about me. I feel famous! But next time, try not to take a quote out of context. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: grandmakdw

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I get it. You want the right to discriminate. You're outraged that gays are a new "protected" segment of society and you have to stifle your rancid hate, wrapped in the American Flag, in the secular business world, for the greater good of society. How Communist!

Yes, gay customers have to be treated equally in secular business situations, but cheer up, you can still bash them here, on ATS!



I have nothing against gays. This has nothing to do with gays at all. What a person does in the privacy of their bedroom is their business not mine. If you had read any of my other posts where people talk about homosexuality, my stand has been consistent. What people do with their sexuality is not my business, nor the government's business. It is crass and rude to expect people to celebrate what one does in the bedroom, regardless of one's sexuality. If people in love want to marry, fine, that's ok with me. You are missing the point entirely.

Let me give you a currently "out there" example.
Suppose the liberal/progressive movement decides that whatever 2 adults choose to do as long as both consent, society must and everyone must celebrate the choice of the 2 adults.

Suppose within those parameters: one person wants to die,
the other person wants to kill.
Well let's say the current societal value is to celebrate assisted suicide,
because that is what the person wants (no health issue involved, currently legal in many countries)
and with overpopulation they are doing society a favor (saving the government the cost of euthanasia)

Suppose the person who wants to kill in a violent manner
is emotionally embraced by the person wanting to die,
the person wanting to die for whatever reason
wants to die in a violent manner.

This type of relationship becomes sanctioned by the government
as 2 consenting adults and harming no one else,
and aiding society, so it becomes legalized and codified.

There then come rituals, as often happens and the death day becomes a big celebration party for the 2 adults, and everyone is supposed to be happy for them.

Next it becomes illegal for bakers to refuse to make death day cakes, and florists to refuse to make death day floral arrangements, and venues not to allow the party and the killing to take place at their venue.

Note here: I AM NOT equating this with homosexuality, as you and many others will assume and fuss about. I honestly, personally could care less if someone is gay or not, nor whom they choose to marry - really - not my business. I am simply saying that without a codified value system, this sort of ritual is not beyond the scope of actually happening. I am talking about rituals in general. A wedding is a ritual, a funeral is a ritual, a bar mitzah is a ritual, female circumcision is a ritual, etc.

I am pointing out that for many people celebrating death day
would be abhorrent and against their value system.

But the liberals/progressives who have embraced "death day"
feel that if people are forced to participate against their will
(by baking cakes, making floral arrangements, utilization of their privately owned venue, giving last rites),
that eventually the death day "haters" will turn around and all of society will embrace "death day."


So, to me, this is what the OP is about
forcing people to change their value system against their will
forcing people to think as the liberals/progressives deem appropriate
and forcing people to behave as the liberals/progressives deem appropriate
because they feel they are the anointed ones who know what is best for everyone else
and they feel only their values are the correct values
regardless of where their values lead because the only basis for those values
is 1. how the liberals/progressives feel about the issue
and 2. will it benefit society
and 3. if it will benefit society and the libs feel good about it,
then it must be embraced by everyone
OR ELSE......
you life will be made miserable,
you deserve to lose your job,
you deserve to lose your business,
because you don't embrace liberal/progressive values and ideas.
Whatever, the liberals/progressives decide is the value de jour.




edit on 5Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:43:47 -0600am11501amk154 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

This scenario is ridiculous. No one is being forced to "celebrate" anything. If you choose to be involved in public commerce, i.e., selling a product or service to the general public, then the public has a right to buy that product or service. Selling a cake is a business - exchanging money for a product. Nothing more.

What makes you think someone hasn't already bought a cake to eat right before they choose to end their own life (or to have someone help them end their life)? What makes you think someone hasn't already bought some beautiful flowers to look at while their life is ending? What do their actions have to do with the baker or the florist? Nothing.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Metallicus

I have read the many responses to my rant and I still stand by my statement from the original OP.




I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything against their beliefs or will.


I would venture that FORCING people will actually create a backlash.


I agree 100%. It's natural law. It's impossible to make someone believe anything. So the most one can do to change minds and hearts is to show people differently, and present a new reality to them. That won't happen by forcing them to act against their will and conscience. I think the current state of our racial relations is proof of that. If the Civil Rights Act had worked as proclaimed, if forcing people to act against their beliefs worked, there would be no racism today. We would have no need for the EEOC. Instead, now we just have other races feeling discriminated against and abused by the system, creating a huge backlash in society, and reacting accordingly. (Note: I did not say reacting appropriately. People react in kind.)

With regards to government, however, due process demands the application of law equally to all, and providing services equally to all. Public schools, public transportation, any and all services provided by government at any level, therefore paid for by all taxpayers. That's where the Civil Rights Act should have been focused. Not the private business owner who is just doing his/her best to make a living according to their faith and conscience.

Where I would be the outlier is in regards to corporations. I really think corporations -- with their special privileges and entitlements -- have no place in a free market. Corporations are the very antithesis of a free market. But if we're going to have them, then they should be required to follow the same principles as government of non-discrimination in any way, shape or form.

There are also many, many ways we could help under-served communities start up their own businesses to fill a void. Whether it's grocery stores in inner cities... or bakeries that will joyfully bake wedding cakes for gays... and on and on and on.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I disagree. Forcing an end to slavery by making it illegal created a backlash in the beginning. But now, pretty much everyone in America agrees that slavery is wrong.

I don't know too many store owners today in the South who have a problem with a black person simply walking into their store. That attitude was very different 60 years ago.

No, you will never get completely rid of racism, because you will never completely get rid of hateful, bigoted, small-minded people. But attitudes of the general public DO change. Sometimes it's against their will at first, but generally speaking, people want to do the right thing when it comes to how they treat other people -- so they change willingly -- eventually.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Metallicus

I have read the many responses to my rant and I still stand by my statement from the original OP.




I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything against their beliefs or will.


I would venture that FORCING people will actually create a backlash.


No, nobody should be forced to believe anything. I happily agree that shop owners can hate who they want. It's their shop.
However if they are decent human beings, it would be better if they announce their hate at the door with a sign. Something like:
- No Gays
- No Blacks
- No whatever...

Mainly to eliminate the embarrassment for the idiotic shopper who dared to be born different. How dare they want flowers or a room in my hotel.

Also I'd love to take part of this freedom to open a shop myself and put a sign out with:

- No religious people
- No Bigots
- No old people with right wing leanings, who have a nice front yard and clean fingernails but secretly hate anyone who is different.

If I'd be allowed to do that, that would be great. Then we could all read the signs and plan our shopping route accordingly.

Because it would take a while to figure out which shops we are allowed in. There could be maps that tell us where we can and can't go. This would make life so much more difficult but hey, who cares if we can keep out people we hate.
It would make for a great shopping experience.

//end sarcasm



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv


You don't think anyone should be forced to do ANYTHING? I don't think you really mean that. How about being forced to follow laws, like not killing or stealing? What if someone claims their religious beliefs allow them to cut off the head of someone that doesn't agree with them?


Forcing someone to do something against their will is not the same as preventing someone from doing something to others. My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. Nor do laws force anyone to NOT do something... We keep passing more and more laws and those laws keep getting broken, hence the need for law enforcement, courts and jails. It's only an incentive and/or deterrent.


You shouldn't be allowed to do things that take away someone else's right. People have a right to not be discriminated against based on simply who they are - their race or their sexual orientation.


Actually, no, we don't have a right to not be discriminated against for any or no reason. It's natural law. People will think and believe what they will and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to force them to change their hearts and minds. Nothing. You can only force them to act against their will and conscience. You can use the law as an incentive and/or to deter their actions or lack thereof... and you can use the force of law to punish them when/if they continue to act or not act as you choose, but you cannot force people to think a certain way. And people will react accordingly. They will find other reasons not to bake that cake, perhaps even closing their business.... or they will bake that cake with a few unpleasant surprises. Natural law will win out in the end. Every time.

Just look at the chaos the Civil Rights Act has wrought, and Affirmative Action, and on and on. If forcing people to act a certain way was effective, there would be no racism today. None. When forced busing of students was implemented in the 70s, the joke at our high school was why weren't they busing white kids into our school. Whites, Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans... we had the whole package. Blacks and Mexicans were the only ones with race inclusive gangs; and only those who chose to, not all Blacks or all Mexicans were part of the gangs. For the most part, everyone intermingled and got along quite well. No one needed a law to be friends. And no one needed a law to be racist. Instead, all these laws do is create further animosity and division among the people. The proof is all around us.

I share your ideal, but reality is reality. As soon as we decide others can force us to do something -- no matter how good or noble the end result may seem -- we open the door to others forcing us to do that which is not good or noble... and may even be downright evil. That too is natural law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Boadicea

I disagree. Forcing an end to slavery by making it illegal created a backlash in the beginning. But now, pretty much everyone in America agrees that slavery is wrong.


Exactly! Slavery was forcing a person to act against their will and conscience. And only those who wanted to force others to act against their will and conscience had a problem with ending slavery.


I don't know too many store owners today in the South who have a problem with a black person simply walking into their store. That attitude was very different 60 years ago.


Since it's now illegal and the full force of law can be brought down on them for their thoughts, of course we don't know because they're not saying... but they still exist, and they still find ways to make that shopper's experience uncomfortable and unpleasant... following them around to make sure they don't steal anything, refusing to offer sales help, over-charging, telling the customer they don't have their size or color or whatever. Now they're just sneaky and shady about it.


No, you will never get completely rid of racism, because you will never completely get rid of hateful, bigoted, small-minded people. But attitudes of the general public DO change. Sometimes it's against their will at first, but generally speaking, people want to do the right thing when it comes to how they treat other people -- so they change willingly -- eventually.


No mind changes against their will. Rather, when the "facts" change, their opinions change... or, to put it another way, when they know better, they do better. Just as you said, most people do want to treat other people well and do the right thing, but they learn by experience -- not force of law. I was at the zoo with my sister-in-law and niece once, and I struck up a conversation with a Black woman at the turkey vulture exhibit, as we laughed at how darn fugly those things are. She and her two kids ended up joining us as we continued walking around the zoo, and they had lunch with us. We had a great time, and she is still a friend today. I didn't realize it at the time, but my sister-in-law had some racial biases... she later told me that day changed her forever. I don't know exactly what my sister-in-law thought previously, but it wasn't a law that changed her heart and mind.

I think it was Martin Luther King who said the only way to really destroy an enemy is to make them a friend. That's done with love and respect, not hate and force.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

I think it was Martin Luther King who said the only way to really destroy an enemy is to make them a friend. That's done with love and respect, not hate and force.


And yet, one of Martin Luther King's main goals was to get civil rights legislation (laws) passed to protect the rights of African-American citizens.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Boadicea

I think it was Martin Luther King who said the only way to really destroy an enemy is to make them a friend. That's done with love and respect, not hate and force.


And yet, one of Martin Luther King's main goals was to get civil rights legislation (laws) passed to protect the rights of African-American citizens.




And God bless him for it. But Martin Luther King was acting within the confines of his time... he didn't have 60 years of hindsight to see the unintended consequences. We do. We can do better.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
Is THIS the liberal philosophy of freedom or just this members opinion? Does anyone else agree that we should be 'FORCING' people's attitudes and opinions through legislation?


I am mostly considered liberal. I don't think the government CAN actually force attitudes. Attitudes come from thoughts, and people are going to have their attitudes, regardless of law or social acceptability. But the government can, does and should force people to obey laws that insure equal treatment under the law of all citizens. Now, that's the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment is "liberal", then, I guess it's a philosophy of freedom that most liberals share...



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

In treating everyone equally. If a person comes into a bakery and wants a cake with "Allah Ackbar, Death to the Americans", are the bakers obligated to make the cake?
With the value of equal treatment if someone wants a florist to make a large arrangement with a banner that says "KKK for the good of the future", is the florist obligated to make the banner for the flowers?
In treating everyone equally, if someone wants to have a religious marriage ceremony for a 9 year old girl and a 42 year old man, who insist it is a religious ceremony and not legal and represents the legal marriage to come in the future, is a venue obligated to allow them to have this ceremony on their privately owned property.

Under your definition of equal treatment, all of these would be true, under the liberal philosophy you espouse, everyone must do whatever a customer asks of them and can not reject anyone or anything because then you would be judging their moral values with your refusal to serve. Because just asking them to bake a cake, arrange flowers, or use a venue doesn't mean one can judge what you perceive as the morality behind the request, as long as you personally are not asked to do anything illegal.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

In treating everyone equally. If a person comes into a bakery and wants a cake with "Allah Ackbar, Death to the Americans", are the bakers obligated to make the cake?


It depends:
If he prints that same message for other people, then maybe. If he doesn't, then no. Simple.
If he refuses the customer on the basis of race, religion, gender, disability, etc., a product or service that he offers to others, it may be illegal, depending on state laws.



With the value of equal treatment if someone wants a florist to make a large arrangement with a banner that says "KKK for the good of the future", is the florist obligated to make the banner for the flowers?


See above.



In treating everyone equally, if someone wants to have a religious marriage ceremony for a 9 year old girl and a 42 year old man, who insist it is a religious ceremony and not legal and represents the legal marriage to come in the future, is a venue obligated to allow them to have this ceremony on their privately owned property.


Are you serious? Reductio ad Absurdum



Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes.




Under your definition of equal treatment, all of these would be true


You are terribly mistaken if you think you understand my position. NONE of your simplistic and absurd examples, in any way, demonstrates the idea of discrimination OR equal treatment under the law. Get a grip.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join