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.

 

Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

page: 34
21
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Yes...anyone for any reason. The same and therefore equal way a customer may decide which business to use. There is no law that a customer can not refuse to use a business due to race (for example)...but it happens all the time. It should be the same for business owners.


Why? You keep saying this should be the case, but why? The answer for fairness reasons isn't good enough since businesses have been shown to abuse that "fairness" in the past. So list ONE good reason why businesses should be allowed to turn someone away for a random reason like the color of their skin.




posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Additionally, in what world is it considered "special treatment" for a black man to be able to buy the same sandwich from the same person as a white man?



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And what of the black family stranded in a small texas town due to car trouble, and the town's only mechanic refusing to service their vehicle because they're black?

Is that "Fair and Equal" to leave that family stranded?

What about the gay woman living in Rural New Mexico being unable to buy milk because the one convenience store for 40 miles "Doesn't serve queers"? Is that fair?

OMG...what part of this isn't clear. If what you want isn't equality and fairness then just say it. But if you want everyone treated equally and every person being equal with equal rights and freedoms, you have to accept that some people will use that in a manner you don't agree with.

That differs from wanting what you or any other individual decides is right and happens to call it equal. Equal is a fact...opinion is just that. What you are saying is that you want to decide for everyone what is right and wrong...you are not preaching equality. If you give certain people special rights...you are not preaching equality.

I agree with you...it would be a shame for anyone to be refused service when they are in a tough spot. I would never do that to even that arrogant person I mentioned earlier. But I don't think you see how this works. If you treat everyone equally, you will have to deal with the consequences...some people are asses who will use it to their advantage. But when you treat some people as special, or give some people rights that you don't give others...you breed hatred and/or bigotry.

I know very few people who would ever say "I hate gay people" simply because of their sexual preference. I do know people who get ticked off that certain groups of people get special rights. Affirmative action probably caused more anti-black attitudes than it resolved. I think everyone should be treated equally, fairly and just like our legal system...with blinders on. But until we actually treat everyone the same and give everyone the same rights, you breed opposition.

So (hopefully) in closing...I don't oppose the way you wish the world was, but calling it equality when it is not creates more of the world you don't like. Treat everyone equally, decide who the asses are and blow them off. We would all be better off.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I do know people who get ticked off that certain groups of people get special rights.


WHO gets special rights?



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I understand now, your version of "Equal and Fair" means "Equal and Fair for the people NOT being targeted by discrimination"

You somehow believe that the right for a black man to get the same service a white man does is unfair to the business owner.

For everyone to be equal in your world, everyone should be allowed to discriminate. Let's bring back "whites only" establishments while we're at it. Oh, and let's separate those water fountains again. If you're gay, don't EVER live in a small town, you'll probably starve. Yup, fair for everyone!



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I understand now, your version of "Equal and Fair" means "Equal and Fair for the people NOT being targeted by discrimination"

You somehow believe that the right for a black man to get the same service a white man does is unfair to the business owner.

For everyone to be equal in your world, everyone should be allowed to discriminate. Let's bring back "whites only" establishments while we're at it. Oh, and let's separate those water fountains again. If you're gay, don't EVER live in a small town, you'll probably starve. Yup, fair for everyone!

I'll chat and debate with anyone, but when you put words in my mouth...I'm done. No where did I say that a black and white man receiving the same service is unfair. You apparently have an ignorant one-sided agenda. I won't feed it any longer.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I do know people who get ticked off that certain groups of people get special rights.


WHO gets special rights?

I'll respond if you wish...but I thought you wanted this conversation over with.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

That's precisely what you're saying. Legally protecting the right of a black man to receive the same service as a white man is unfair. You've said that is unfair to business owners.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you said them yourself. And when questioned on it, you said "Well of course that fairness and equalness would create situations that people unfortunately have to live with.


But if you want everyone treated equally and every person being equal with equal rights and freedoms, you have to accept that some people will use that in a manner you don't agree with.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I've asked the question twice now. Please respond. Thanks.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I've asked the question twice now. Please respond. Thanks.

Eric Holder (DOJ): "We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends -- is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute."

Special rights. If a white person kills a black person after yelling a racist remark...it is a hate crime and the white person will receive one level of punishment. If a black person kills a white person after yelling out a racist remark...they will receive a lesser punishment.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Holder again: "There's a certain element of hate, I suppose. What we're looking for here in terms of the expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis to see groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don't know if we have the same historical record to say that members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African-American, Hispanic, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over -- over the many years."



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

So, WHO IS GETTING SPECIAL RIGHTS?

If you're going to answer, please do. But don't "answer" with a quote from the DOJ. Is it gay people? Black people? WHO?
edit on 5/26/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
This is the head of law enforcement saying that if you are a "protected group", you get rights other groups are not entitled to. That makes those rights or those laws special for certain people and not others.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

So, WHO IS GETTING SPECIAL RIGHTS?

Read the quotes...he spells them out.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
This is the head of law enforcement saying that if you are a "protected group", you get rights other groups are not entitled to.


That's not even true. OK, you don't have an answer. Thanks.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
This is the head of law enforcement saying that if you are a "protected group", you get rights other groups are not entitled to.


That's not even true. OK, you don't have an answer. Thanks.

And again...look it up. Those are direct quotes from Eric Holder on the record. I'm done...you apparently just want to believe what you believe and not hear opposition. I'm done.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Yes...anyone for any reason. The same and therefore equal way a customer may decide which business to use. There is no law that a customer can not refuse to use a business due to race (for example)...but it happens all the time. It should be the same for business owners.


Why? You keep saying this should be the case, but why? The answer for fairness reasons isn't good enough since businesses have been shown to abuse that "fairness" in the past. So list ONE good reason why businesses should be allowed to turn someone away for a random reason like the color of their skin.

The only reason is equality. It is something you are either for, for everyone...or not.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Equality for what? Equality under the law or Equality for treatment? Because you can't have one without the other apparently. If we are to guarantee equal treatment then there can't be equality under the law as a business owner would be free to turn someone away for something like race. If we are to guarantee equality under the law then you can't have equal treatment because then you'd have to force a business owner to do something they may not want to do.

This country has already solved that dilemma though. It guarantees equality under the law and NOT equal treatment. There is no such thing in this country as having equal treatment. Some people have to be treated unfairly to guarantee that everyone has the same rights and privileges guaranteed by law. The Constitution is pretty clear about that.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Perhaps in the future there won't be need for laws to ensure that all humans are treated equally. I want the future to be true, for sure. But in today's society, certain laws are necessary to ensure people in minority groups aren't discriminated against. For the record, I'm against Affirmative Action. I think it prevents people from hiring based on merit rather than race, but I also understand why it was signed into law. Until society is at point where everyone is equal and color/gender/sexual identity/religion are irrelevant to a person's valuation of another, then these laws are an unfortunate necessity to ensure all people are at least equal in the eyes of the law.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
When is the federal government going to admit LGBT's as a protected class so nonsense like this is forced to stop?


As soon as they admit white straight male Christians as one.



No one is legally discriminating against that demographic though. So it is unnecessary.



AH I see.

so if you discriminant Illegally no issues?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join