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

originally posted by: mOjOm
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???

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Both are clearly discrimination. I'm saying that discrimination is allowed on a daily basis, and at times even encouraged.

a reply to: nenothtu

Let's take this further.... how about say a nudist family walks in a restaurant completely naked. Obviously that would mean a serious violation of health code. But hey that's their belief! It's their lifestyle!

Is it discriminatory to refuse service to them and have them kicked out?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
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.

Well at least I didn't go there! I did make mention of polyandry - you might want to consider including that into any extension of Godwin's Law.

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.

Good for you! I'm seriously impressed! Just between you and I and the walls, I don't know that I could go there. Of course I would stand for their right to speak, and I think we could both agree on that, but would have to draw the line at having a "right" to have any particular person build the dais they speak from. They have the right to try to find someone to build it, and if they can't find anyone willing, to build it themselves, but they have no right to any one else's labor who doesn't want to give it up. That cut's too far into the carpenter's rights of self determination and conscience.

Suppose further that the Carpenter was a christian, and instead of a platform they ordered 100 crosses from him to keep on hand for burning at rallies? I would think a christian carpenter might run out of cheeks to turn in pretty short order at the prospect of building desecrations to his religion for stockpiling.

Yes indeed, as you observe these examples ARE extreme - but when the choices aren't as extreme, the concept doesn't get a proper test. How far does it have to go before "religious freedom", and thus the entire first amendment that it prefaces, become entirely meaningless?

originally posted by: nenothtu
Both are clearly discrimination. I'm saying that discrimination is allowed on a daily basis, and at times even encouraged.

I see. So as far as you're concerned Discrimination, within business, is not just allowed but encouraged???

The reason it's not of serious concern though is because the "free market" solves it basically from getting out of control??? Is that right???

** Edit: I should make clear that I'm talking about a true free market. Unregulated which I assume is what you would mean by a free market.

a reply to: mOjOm

So as far as you're concerned Discrimination, within business, is not just allowed but encouraged???

He was talking about the no shoes no shirt no service part which he considers to be discriminatory and yet we encourage that.

originally posted by: arpgme

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

Whoa! Where are they installing laws like THAT?

I thought we were talking about the Indiana religious freedom law (which has now been nullified, apparently - or at the very least made void and of no effect). The Indian law said that one had the freedom to exercise religion - it did not say in any place in it that gays would not be served by law - THAT would make it like a Jim Crow law, not simply giving people choices in how they run their own affairs.

Or are you saying that you believe NO ONE would choose to serve gays without a law to force them to? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

a reply to: nenothtu

It's like Jim Crow laws because it's not fair and goes against equality/justice and thus the Constitution.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

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.

Well, shoes do not preclude the possibility of accidents happening - I have actually witnessed accidents happen to people who were fully shod. As far as lawsuits go, there is a potential for lawsuits in anything and everything. Mode of dress doesn't prevent them.

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

It would me too - but is our discomfiture really his responsibility? Put another way - is his discomfiture at having to put on a shirt really our responsibility? Is it not a just personal problem either way?

a reply to: nenothtu

It would me too - but is our discomfiture really his responsibility? Put another way - is his discomfiture at having to put on a shirt really our responsibility? Is it not a just personal problem either way?

He could be a schizo or a retarded. It is our responsibility to make sure we are safe and healthy. We live in a society where certain behaviors are to be expected from each other.

That is what society is all about.

BTW I hope I am being coherent as I am drunk right now lol.

Basically what it all boils down to is society.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: nenothtu

Let's take this further.... how about say a nudist family walks in a restaurant completely naked. Obviously that would mean a serious violation of health code. But hey that's their belief! It's their lifestyle!

Is it discriminatory to refuse service to them and have them kicked out?

Yes, without a doubt it is. You should probably do it any way. Discrimination is not always a bad thing. As I keep saying, it happens all the time in interpersonal interactions.

In the case of this Indiana law, someone was BOUND to be discriminated against the instant someone passed a law. It was going to be either gays getting discriminated against by a few businesses, or religious folk getting discriminated against by... hell, I guess it's government doing the discriminating at this point, since the buckled under to the PC Police.

I don't believe it's just a matter of who you're willing to shove to the back of the bus any more. It entered a whole new arena when government mandated that it break the laws upon which it was itself founded. Before that, it wasn't government doing the shoving - it was individual business owners, who would likely run out of customers like that. Now it has been institutionalized, against a different target, by government edict. That is a whole new ball game that we've really not seen since the days of Jim Crow.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Ya I'm lost then. Too many people with too many world views. Let me get it straight.

Nenothtu, So are you a full anarchist also?? Strict "Natural Law" guy like something from Locke???

Discrimination is Good, Bad or N/A???

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: nenothtu
Both are clearly discrimination. I'm saying that discrimination is allowed on a daily basis, and at times even encouraged.

I see. So as far as you're concerned Discrimination, within business, is not just allowed but encouraged???

Yes. Not just within business, but in all areas of human contact. Some is bad, some isn't, but it's all going to happen regardless, as long as there are people. Government encourages it, clubs encourage it, lobbyists encourage it... discrimination happens and is not only encouraged, it is often applauded. This case in Indiana is a prime example. Discrimination on a religious basis is being encouraged and celebrated, applauded, because it's going in the "right" direction now instead of the "wrong" one. It's still discrimination.

The reason it's not of serious concern though is because the "free market" solves it basically from getting out of control??? Is that right???

** Edit: I should make clear that I'm talking about a true free market. Unregulated which I assume is what you would mean by a free market.

No - the reason that it's not of serious concern is because it is almost never of any import or impact. Markets of any sort rarely if ever deal in social concerns - they deal in money. Some bakery won't bake a cake? Pfft! Find one that will - they ain't the only bakery in town! There is always someone who wants your money - I think it would be a better idea to give it to them, rather than try to force it into Joe Christian's pocket, who DOESN'T want it. He will eventually find out what refusing money does to a business - unless he is made a martyr and given an crowd funding campaign.

I don't know much about markets - free or otherwise - or market forces etc. I know I like the Farmer's Market because it's small, and I know that if I piss off enough of my customers in any market, I won't have any more.

Regulations are needed on any cooperative venture, but they can get out of hand and be taken to extremes. Complete unregulation is just the other end of the extreme. I think extremes are bad, in either direction.

a reply to: nenothtu

Some bakery won't bake a cake? Pfft! Find one that will - they ain't the only bakery in town!

Say that to Benevolent Heretic. There is only one bakery in her town!

clubs encourage it

Clubs are not businesses that are open to the public.

originally posted by: nenothtu
Regulations are needed on any cooperative venture, but they can get out of hand and be taken to extremes. Complete unregulation is just the other end of the extreme. I think extremes are bad, in either direction.

So regulation of Big Business is Good but small business is Bad???

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: nenothtu

It's like Jim Crow laws because it's not fair and goes against equality/justice and thus the Constitution.

yes, yes, you've said that before, and that makes at least twice you've said that now - but you have yet to explain your reasoning there. Life is not "fair", so we can throw that objection out to begin with . "Justice" is whatever the law says it is, because that is how "justice" is accomplished - through law... equality is an illusion at best - we are not clones, and so will never be equal ( I will never be as good looking as you, for example, but do you hear me complaining about it?) so that leaves only the Constitutional argument.

How is it "Jim Crow" (which, by the way, WAS "justice" until it was overturned and replaced by a new "justice") by going against the Constitution? Where in the Constitution - what part of that document is specifically being violated by it?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: nenothtu

It would me too - but is our discomfiture really his responsibility? Put another way - is his discomfiture at having to put on a shirt really our responsibility? Is it not a just personal problem either way?

He could be a schizo or a retarded.

Yes, he could be - but putting on a shirt would not change that, would it? In either case?

It is our responsibility to make sure we are safe and healthy.

It's our responsibility to be as safe and healthy as we want to be, or course. That does not make it HIS responsibility to look out for OUR well being, though - he's got to look after his own, after all. Like I said before, that sounds like a personal problem on our part to me.

We live in a society where certain behaviors are to be expected from each other.

That is what society is all about.

That's true enough, but where do you draw the line? I know where I draw it, but where do YOU draw it?

BTW I hope I am being coherent as I am drunk right now lol.

Basically what it all boils down to is society.

Doing pretty good - I give you an 8/10 for form, but it's only slipped that far recently. I'm soon gonna have to bug out any how, though, and get my beauty sleep.

a reply to: nenothtu

I'm soon gonna have to bug out any how, though, and get my beauty sleep.

Good night. You are one of those few posters who are willing to have a good and civil discussion.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Ya I'm lost then. Too many people with too many world views. Let me get it straight.

Nenothtu, So are you a full anarchist also?? Strict "Natural Law" guy like something from Locke???

Discrimination is Good, Bad or N/A???

I really don't know myself where I fall there. Almost certainly not a full anarchist, because I recognize a need for SOME law, SOME structure. I also realize that we took that to extremes a century ago. I think "Natural Law" should be the basis of all law, but is certainly not the source of it - we have legislatures for that. I think they work too much and are in session too often, but that is what they are for, and they are needed - they just took us overboard. About a century ago. They should meet less and go back home more, get in touch with the folks they claim to represent.

"Discrimination" of itself is neither good nor bad. It just "is". it would be better if it could be minimized, but that is never going to happen again - it's only increase from here out for it.

Because of all the useless laws we have to put up with. Law IS "institutionalized discrimination" - think about it... law would be entirely unnecessary if it were not for discrimination. NO one would ever think a law needed to be passed if we all agreed, if it weren't for their wish that the discrimination go the other way for a change.

a reply to: nenothtu

law would be entirely unnecessary if it were not for discrimination.

Ah ha another BINGO moment. Not talking about you specifically but to the other posters.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: nenothtu

Some bakery won't bake a cake? Pfft! Find one that will - they ain't the only bakery in town!

Say that to Benevolent Heretic. There is only one bakery in her town!

There are none around here - that's why I can't be gay... no Christian bakeries to make me a cake!

clubs encourage it

Clubs are not businesses that are open to the public.

They're not? Where does "the public" go to drink then? And the other kind of clubs, like chess clubs - they participate in the game, too. that one, however, is truly self-segregating... not everyone WANTS to be in it. There are all sorts of areas of human endeavor that are discriminatory - but I'm sure we will eventually get around to regulating them all!