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.

 

Does a National Employment Non-Discrimination Act Have Merit

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

Restaurants, Stores or other Public services


Oh. So you believe that a private citizen, once he wants to engage in commerce, has to knuckle under your belief system under threat of punishment from the state?




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I want to live in a world where people don't discriminate and deny people based on Sexuality,Gender or Race, but the world is not like that because people are hateful and are willing to deny people based on those facts and hidden behind "Freedom"


Look, i'm far, far, far from loving the Government, but if people are going to hatefully discriminate people someone has to protect us



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Let me ask you this question. Do you think Religion should be protected?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

I want to live in a world where people don't discriminate and deny people based on Sexuality,Gender or Race, but the world is not like that because people are hateful and are willing to deny people based on those facts and hidden behind "Freedom"


Look, i'm far, far, far from loving the Government, but if people are going to hatefully discriminate people someone has to protect us


So you want to be free to do your own thing, but don't want others to be free to do their own thing?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

Let me ask you this question. Do you think Religion should be protected?


Not any more than anyone else who wants to do their own thing. If I, as an atheist, do not want to cater a Bible thumper dinner, I should have the right to decline their business if I want--and I say that as an atheist.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think you are looking at it at a very Microlevel of thinking, what about the companies that people buy their supplies from for their store, what if a supplier decided he didn't want to sell to a buyer because of "X" Reason?

So lets say you are asked to Cater an event, lets say the place you get your supplies from to make the Food etc wont sell to you. let say no one will.. lets say you can't cater anymore because people wont sell you what you need.. so you can't have your business anymore?

Look, if you support the right to discriminate, Get your life.. but if we need protection we need protection
edit on 6-7-2015 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think you are looking at it at a very Microlevel of thinking, what about the companies that people buy their supplies from for their store, what if a supplier decided he didn't want to sell to a buyer because of "X" Reason?

So lets say you are asked to Cater an event, lets say the place you get your supplies from to make the Food etc wont sell to you. let say no one will.. lets say you can't cater anymore because people wont sell you what you need.. so you can't have your business anymore?

Look, if you support the right to discriminate, Get your life.. but if we need protection we need protection


First of all, I wouldn't insult your intelligence by using the term "microlevel thinking." You are a smart person.

Your reducto ad absurdum argument wouldn't really happen. People want to make money--especially in today's society.

Even so, do you think that a Jewish Holocaust survivor should be forced by the state to cater a Nazi rally or do you think he should have the freedom to choose not to.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Doc, do public accommodation laws have merit or not?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Maybe it is absurd, and maybe it would never happen... i was just using "What If" as maybe a different way to think about it. i mean if you take away all protection who is to say what and what would not happen on a bigger scale of thinking

But like i said, if you support the right to discriminate and would rather live in a world of legal discrimination, Get your life



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Doc, do public accommodation laws have merit or not?


I tend Libertarian which means that I think that people should be able to make their own choices in life, be it two men wanting to get married or a Jewish deli owner not wanting to cater a Nazi rally. Freedom of choice.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Doc, do public accommodation laws have merit or not?


I tend Libertarian which means that I think that people should be able to make their own choices in life, be it two men wanting to get married or a Jewish deli owner not wanting to cater a Nazi rally. Freedom of choice.


So, no place for public accommodation laws then?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

Maybe it is absurd, and maybe it would never happen... i was just using "What If" as maybe a different way to think about it. i mean if you take away all protection who is to say what and what would not happen on a bigger scale of thinking

But like i said, if you support the right to discriminate and would rather live in a world of legal discrimination, Get your life


That is a disingenuous way of putting it. I think that you have the right to make your own choices in life and, as such, everyone else should as well. It does not matter if I agree with your choices, as a consenting adult and a citizen, those are your choices to make and the government should not tell you if it is valid or not. Was not this recent SCOTUS decision all about that principle? How can anyone demand freedom to make their own choices but deny it to others? That seems hypocritical to me.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Doc, do public accommodation laws have merit or not?


I tend Libertarian which means that I think that people should be able to make their own choices in life, be it two men wanting to get married or a Jewish deli owner not wanting to cater a Nazi rally. Freedom of choice.


So, no place for public accommodation laws then?


Do you think a Jewish holocaust survivor should be forced to cater a Nazi rally by the government?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

And your choice would be to open a Public Business Public.. to me and maybe my young ignorance means to serve the Public. you want the right to Discriminate which would impede the life's of others... i mean by making your choice of not serving someone, you are essentially making their choice of not getting served there or having to leave to another place...so



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Doc, do public accommodation laws have merit or not?


I tend Libertarian which means that I think that people should be able to make their own choices in life, be it two men wanting to get married or a Jewish deli owner not wanting to cater a Nazi rally. Freedom of choice.


So, no place for public accommodation laws then?


Do you think a Jewish holocaust survivor should be forced to cater a Nazi rally by the government?


You answer questions with questions, and base most of your arguments on pure hypotheticals.

It doesn't matter what I personally think about your extreme example, nothing more than a version of reductio ad absurdum.

Here, I'll throw you a few back: should a white supremacist owning a convenience store tell a Black child that came in to buy a candy bar that he doesn't sell to "f-ing n-s"? Is he also "just enforcing his personal rights?"

What about a teenaged Christian who refuses to call 911 when an elderly Muslim man (who actually happens to be a Sikh wearing a turban) has a heart attack in the store he works in because the kid refused to serve "enemies of America?"

No need for any jurisprudence there?

Speaking of the law, those States that have put anti-discrimination laws in place to protect sexual orientation in public accommodation, are you saying that they shouldn't be able to do that?

Isn't that a prime example of State's Rights in action?

edit on 17Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:53:53 -050015p052015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

And your choice would be to open a Public Business Public.. to me and maybe my young ignorance means to serve the Public. you want the right to Discriminate which would impede the life's of others... i mean by making your choice of not serving someone, you are essentially making their choice of not getting served there or having to leave to another place...so


How does not baking you a cake "impede your life?" Do you have a right to the labor of others? Like I said, it would be hypocritical of me to support your right to do what you want to do and not support the same right to other people.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Doc, do public accommodation laws have merit or not?


I tend Libertarian which means that I think that people should be able to make their own choices in life, be it two men wanting to get married or a Jewish deli owner not wanting to cater a Nazi rally. Freedom of choice.


So, no place for public accommodation laws then?


Do you think a Jewish holocaust survivor should be forced to cater a Nazi rally by the government?


You answer questions with questions, and base most of your arguments on pure hypotheticals.

It doesn't matter what I personally think about your extreme example, nothing more than a version of reductio ad absurdum.

Here, I'll throw you a few back: should a white supremacist owning a convenience store tell a Black child that came in to buy a candy bar that he doesn't sell to "f-ing n-s"? Is he also "just enforcing his personal rights?"

What about a teenaged Christian who refuses to call 911 when an elderly Muslim man (who actually happens to be a Sikh wearing a turban) has a heart attack in the store he works in because the kid refused to serve "enemies of America?"

No need for any jurisprudence there?

Speaking of the law, those States that have put anti-discrimination laws in place to protect sexual orientation in public accommodation, are you saying that they shouldn't be able to do that?

Isn't that a prime example of State's Rights in action?


However, all of your examples are hypotheticals. We don't live in 1950 any more.




What about a teenaged Christian who refuses to call 911 when an elderly Muslim man (who actually happens to be a Sikh wearing a turban) has a heart attack in the store he works in because the kid refused to serve "enemies of America


Are you going to make not calling for help illegal now? How do you prove that? How does that make sense? This situation made a stupid last episode to Seinfeld and it makes a stupid example now. And no, nobody should be charged for not calling 911, especially kids, even if you dislike Christian teenagers.

Do you think a Jewish holocaust survivor should be forced by the state to cater a Nazi rally or do you think we should respect his freedom to choose? You got a bunch of questions from me now it is your turn to answer one from me.
edit on 6-7-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Got it, so I'm supposed to answer your absurd hypotheticals, but you don't like getting them back?

Speaking of "stupid" ... if it's not the 1950s it's also sure as heck not the 1930s.

Also, Seinfeld is your reference? Wow.

It is against the law to refuse to render aid in many situations in areas with Good Samaritan laws.

And yes, anyone consciously refusing to provide even minimal assistance to help another human being in peril (like calling 911) in any circumstance anywhere is barbaric at best.

Sorry you don't recognize the basic humanity involved there.

So ... what about the 21 States that protect sexual orientation and the 3 that protect gender identity with anti-discrimination laws? These States don't have the Right to set those laws? What about State Sovereignty?




edit on 18Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:16:21 -050015p062015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Because it restricts me from buying a Cake, and would force me to go to another Bakery, and what if they refused? i would have to go to another one, so essentially you want to make that choice for me?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Got it, so I'm supposed to answer your absurd hypotheticals, but you don't like getting them back?

Speaking of "stupid" ... if it's not the 1950s it's also sure as heck not the 1930s.

Also, Seinfeld is your reference? Wow.

It is against the law to refuse to render aid in many situations in areas with Good Samaritan laws.

And yes, anyone consciously refusing to provide even minimal assistance to help another human being in peril (like calling 911) in any circumstance anywhere is barbaric at best.

Sorry you don't recognize the basic humanity involved there.

So ... what about the 21 States that protect sexual orientation and the 3 that protect gender identity with anti-discrimination laws? These States don't have the right to set those laws?





Seinfeld was a great example of your hypothetical--they were jailed for not calling for help which was what you proposed.

It is not against the law in any jurisdiction to refuse to give aid under "good Samaritan" laws. In fact the whole point of those laws is to give protection to those who legitimately try to help from lawsuits if things go bad, not to punish those who do not provide aid.




Physicians treating patients are under a duty to provide care that meets certain standards of care. This is due to the fact that physicians have a fiduciary relationship to their patients. But what about physicians who are treating people with whom they have no relationship at all? For example, a physician pulls over at the scene of an accident and, through a sense of civic responsibility, delivers health care. Can that physician then be sued if the injured persons do not survive? This article will review Good Samaritan laws and explore variations among states.

Good Samaritan laws generally provide basic legal protection for those who assist a person who is injured or in danger. In essence, these laws protect the “Good Samaritan” from liability if unintended consequences result from their assistance. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some type of Good Samaritan law. Who is protected under these laws (physicians, emergency medical technicians, and other first responders) and how these laws are implemented vary from state to state. In addition, some states extend Good Samaritan liability protection to cover business and nonprofit entities acting during an emergency.



AOOS link

I can assume from our comments you don't know what "good Samaritan" laws are.

Again--should the state punish a Jewish holocaust survivor who runs a deli for not wanting to cater a Nazi rally?
Certainly, I can agree that not calling 911 in an emergency is morally wrong and barbaric, but you want to make it against the law, which is a radically different issue.

This issue is where we are fundamentally different--I recognize that some acts are disgusting and stupid and rude and simply awful, but you want to use the coercive power of the state to punish acts you think are immoral. This is the same principle used by those who would criminalize homosexuality--they also wanted to use the coercive power of the state to punish acts they find disgusting--two sides of the same coin.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join