Should gay people fight for the right for anti-gay businesses to take their money or just boycott?

a reply to: mOjOm

Well if this is what you're suggesting then there is no discussion or argument to be had. It's just a free for all to do as we please.

You do realize you sound a lot like a creationist right now, right?

"But, but...if everyone stops believing in God it'll just be a free-for-all and people will just do what they want"

Are you saying that if all laws were abolished tomorrow you would start killing people? Can I answer for you? Awesome. So, if all law was abolished tomorrow, I highly doubt that you, Deaf alien, would begin your killing spree.

I think that the majority of people are peaceful. The people that would use the lack of law to kill, are most likely killing now.

A law making marijuana illegal doesn't stop anyone from smoking weed, just like making certain killings illegal doesn't stop them from happening.

Law, in reality, doesn't really do anything. The only accomplishment of the concept of law has been in unifying human beings to collectively agree to pour all human power and authority into one single, centralized source: government.

And do remember, that the power you give government to protect you, is the power you give government to abuse you with, too.

I, for one, do not like the idea of having one centralized monopoly of power.

That applies equally by default so I guess I can't argue against that. I'm not sure how far you'll get by following it but go ahead and do it if that's what you want.

That is exactly what I'm going to do. The state, the law, and government are human creations, and can be destroyed by us.

I refuse to have rulers.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

You can stop arguing with me now. I do believe I agreed with you. Relax. Take a few breaths.

Please don't call me a creationist. Call me a pinko liberal commie or whatever, but not a creationist.

originally posted by: Annee

Discrimination doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

You can probably tell that I'm new at all this, so I have to ask a lot of questions. Which rights, exactly, does discrimination (by anyone other than government) infringe upon? There is a right to equality under the law, but that's under the law, and doesn't apply to interpersonal transactions.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Are you saying that if all laws were abolished tomorrow you would start killing people? Can I answer for you? Awesome. So, if all law was abolished tomorrow, I highly doubt that you, Deaf alien, would begin your killing spree.

No. We are agreeing with you. The law here in the U.S.A. is to make a person take responsibility for their actions. The courts are there to make sure that you are either innocent or guilty. It is to protect us from vigilantism. Of course laws will not stop people from doing whatever they want. Oh shoot I'm trying to type but I'm kinda drunk lol.

I have considered anarchism before but I was young. Anarchism is a scary thought.

The only accomplishment of the concept of law has been in unifying human beings to collectively agree to pour all human power and authority into one single, centralized source: government.

But the government is us people.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

You do realize you sound a lot like a creationist right now, right?

"But, but...if everyone stops believing in God it'll just be a free-for-all and people will just do what they want"

The difference there is that whether you believe in the law or not doesn't matter. If you challenge it you can still be punished.

Whether or not belief in God results in anything has yet to be shown.

originally posted by: mOjOm

That isn't a right, you have the right to be treated equal under the law. Business has nothing to do with that.

Aren't businesses under the law as well??? Or do they exist and operate outside the law??

Yup, businesses are under the law. That means THEY have a right to equality under the law as well as you do. In both cases, the relationship covered is specified by "under the law" - the relationships between you and "the law" is covered by it, and the relationship between them and "the law" is covered by it.

The relationship between you and them, and them and you, is NOT covered by the phrase "equal under the law", because neither of you makes or enforces law... that is the business of government. It's what they do for a living, and why "equality under the law" is imperative to prevent partiality or preferential enforcement of law.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

And who decides what is criminal? The Law.

Injustice/inequality is against The Constitution, so technically, discrimination is criminal (unlawful/against constitution)

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

So, private businesses aren't private because we have to access them by public roads?

Then your house isn't private propretty because it has to be accessed through public roads.

Businesses that sell to the public.

All businesses in Walkerton, IN must have a government license.

Does that mean you can have a business in Walkerton Indiana that does NOT sell to the public, and not have to have a license for it? because, to be honest, that's looking to me like the way to go to avoid all kinds of legal headaches! No licensing, sell to who you want, probably no inspectors, either, since there are no licenses... I bet that list could really go on!

And yes, public access is not private.

Since the road to your house is public access (you could never get to anywhere other than your house if that were not the case), that makes your house public property too according to that philosophy. Don't worry, I won't throw you out - just pick the part of your yard you want me to build MY house in, and we'll be ok!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu

I have to wonder if you would be willing to support the KKK with the same degree of fervor if a carpenter refused to build them a dais to speak from.

Desperation.

When poster has to resort to KKK or communism or Nazi's - - - you know they have nothing left.

Seriously Annee? I thought you knew me better than that!

We can use any of the above, however, as examples. Just pick your least favorite. If you are not willing to stand for THEIR rights, however distasteful you may find them, you are not standing for anyone's rights at all. Unless all have rights, then NONE have them - remember that little "equality" chant? Equality is not equal when only one faction has it.

Unless you are also willing to stand for the same rights for those distasteful folks, you are being hypocritical, and I refuse to believe you are a hypocrite, Annee.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Annee

When poster has to resort to KKK or communism or Nazi's - - - you know they have nothing left.

LOL see? Godwin's law wins again.

It could have been worse I suppose - I could have had to resort to an internet meme - let's say "Godwin's Law", for example - just to have something to say that didn't involve merely poppin' my teeth together...

Of course, I realize you weren't trying to apply Godwin's Law to me. That would be illogical, since I am not the one who brought Nazis into the discussion.

a reply to: arpgme

And who decides what is criminal? The Law.

No.

If that were the case, then Rosa Parks was a criminal because she didn't move to the back of the bus. She was not a criminal, though.

For an actual crime to take place, someone's rights have to be infringed.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but a law that says you have to have a permit to conceal-carry is, itself, inherently criminal, and the people that write and enforce such a law are criminals. Why? Because that law is infringing on someone's rights, and all laws that infringe on someone's rights are non-laws that, not only do we need not obey, but should be actively encouraged to be broken.

Injustice/inequality is against The Constitution, so technically, discrimination is criminal (unlawful/against constitution)

We are equal under the law, that has nothing to do with private transactions. Those are two separate things. Public vs. Private.

Discrimination isn't criminal, discrimination doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

a reply to: nenothtu

I don't do circular. I state my points, and usually stop after that.

My grandson is sick, couch & bucket. I'm a captive audience, so to speak.

But, I've come to my senses. Later.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: nenothtu

Then why are they allowed to put signs in their windows saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service"

Because of health issue? Maybe they are concerned that they will cut their feet with glasses and whatnot? Maybe they are concerned about other customers' health?

It's still discriminatory - and calling such customers "stupid" and "filthy" to boot. "Stupid" because the implication is they don't know how to watch where they're walking, and "filthy"because they are apparently a health threat to someone else.

That covers the lack of shoes - how is the lack of a shirt in a store harmful health-wise?

Also, it does show that there is no equality in business, just because one wants to force another to transact with him. The stores that put those signs up are also "public businesses"... well, except to some segments of the public, that is...

a reply to: nenothtu

Wait a sec. Are you saying not serving someone because of the no shirt no shoe rule is discrimination but not serving someone because they are gay isn't???

a reply to: nenothtu

Oh yeah. Basically an internet discussion will over time lead to discussion about Nazis. Lately it seems that discussions about homosexuality always lead to pedophilia and bestiality. There should be a new law or an extension of Godwin's law on that lol.

As to your KKK example, it's kinda extreme which I don't think have anything to do with the topic but yes I will support them. If a carpentry business sells their service to the public, then they have to sell to them (of course if it's reasonable) regardless of their beliefs and politics.

Also, as much as I hate what Westboro Baptist Church stands for, I would not refuse service to them that I serve to everyone else equally.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

No . If that were the case, then Rosa Parks was a criminal because she didn't move to the back of the bus. She was not a criminal, though. 

She was a criminal according to Jim Crow's segregation laws, but those laws themselves are against The Constitution (the original law).

Just like these Jim Crow-like law proposals which wants to make discrimination against gays legal.

Each person should be treated with justice and equality, not discrimimation. If a person wants a business in American society, then they should follow the Constitution.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I do understand where you are coming from. I truly do.

Discrimination isn't a crime, and discrimination laws make a non-criminal behavior punishable, so the laws are authoritarian by nature.

I don't really think we are trying to punish business owners. We do not want to drag them to jail. Basically the only thing anyone who got discriminated can do is to sue them.

I believe that is true - it's just civil law, rather than criminal law at this point. Might get their license yanked, but that would be about the extent of the "criminal" reaction - rather than jailing the business, they'd just kill it off... but no actual christians would be crucified in the production of that penalty.

a reply to: nenothtu

It's still discriminatory - and calling such customers "stupid" and "filthy" to boot. "Stupid" because the implication is they don't know how to watch where they're walking

No they are not calling them stupid. Sometimes accidents happen. Also there's a potential for lawsuits if they allow them to walk in barefooted.

That covers the lack of shoes - how is the lack of a shirt in a store harmful health-wise?

It would make me gag to see some fat slob hairy and smelly man without shirt on walking in while I'm eating lol.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

But the government is us people.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That sir, truly IS the theory of it, but practice falls a little short - for example, I'm not very likely to fine myself for being a day late getting a tax form in. I'm even less likely to fine myself for not having something I can't afford in the first place.... and FAR less likely to jail myself over something I never did.

Government, however, has no qualms at all in exercising such penalties.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't do circular. I state my points, and usually stop after that.

My grandson is sick, couch & bucket. I'm a captive audience, so to speak.

But, I've come to my senses. Later.

Fair enough, and good evening to you, then - it was good to talk to you again!

You realize of course that I'm not seriously going to build a house in your yard. I have a fair idea of the general area you live in, and we both know that I'd never be able to survive there, or probably even anywhere within 500 miles of there. I wouldn't really live there for love or money - not even love AND money, not even a LOT of money - the place just ain't "me".

It all works out though - more for you, right? Plus you get the added bonus of not waking up to me singing to the sun every morning - I hear that can cause headaches in the listener.

Take care, and take good care of the grandson, and we'll talk again another time.