Does a National Employment Non-Discrimination Act Have Merit

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Read the entire statute and then get back to me, not just the preamble. They even mention IED's in there. And again, it's rather silly to pull up MInn statutes and hen extrapolate them to the whole country.

Ah. So, sadly it's the second.

First you claim that what I cited is not part of Good Samaritan laws, and now you're utterly misrepresenting the laws themselves.

Neither item that I quoted is a "preamble" but the first item of (and most important item of) these laws.

Silly to extrapolate to Minnesota? What did I actually say in that post again?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah, you're really good at assumptions. Good Samaritan laws vary from State to State and country to country. They are all intended to promote assisting others in peril. Perhaps you overlooked that aspect of these styles of laws in your haste? Also, some statutes do require that an individual render aid if they are able to do so.

Yeah. You're not telling the truth, and I think you know it.

~~~~~~~~

So, moving on. What about the 21 States that have enacted anti-gay discrimination laws?

No State's Rights for those states then?

Depends on the law. No state government should discriminate. Private citizens should be free to make their own choices.

And, until you were able to Google the two states with punitive actions, you were being disingenuous about good Samaritan laws.

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.

Two states does not a trend make. I know you didn't know about those statutes just as I didn't know about those statutes because they are an anomaly.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

You are more than right.. well.. you mind find some glitter places

i feel the same about you, like my intent has never been malicious towards you, we just disagree on points

I can handle some glitter--it'll brighten up the place. I also bet you'd be crazy fun to hit the town with on a Saturday night.

Twenty one states have "anti-gay" anti-discrimination laws on their books, already. Three have statutes regarding gender identity.

You could argue that these are all "liberal" states that don't have strong or fervent religious populations in them ...

... except one of these States is Utah.

I know that some conservatives and some libertarians HATE the concept of statutory protected classes.

I understand the arguments thereof.

However, it seems clear to me that given the standard of finding the best solution for the most people that is equitable for all, the concept of protected classes must be a part of our culture until we do a bit more evolving.

LGBTQ+ folks have been freed from unfair laws which allowed for their incarceration for merely being gay.

LGBTQ+ folks are allowed to serve in our Armed Services openly, and we can now get married just as other Americans do.

Why did these things happen?

Because society slowing realized that the "LGBTQ+" designation is not harmful or hurtful to others, we don't pose a danger to society, we're just ordinary people who are different in some ways from "the norm."

No harm, no crime.

It is abundantly clear however, that there still exists an overwhelming prevalence of folks who do NOT think we are or should be equal citizens, who think we are, at best, unnatural abominations, and at worst, sub-human animals that should be destroyed.

Given those two circumstances, how can it not make sense to extend government protection to those of different sexual orientations and gender identities? Even for Libertarians, isn't that one of the few accepted functions of government?

To help keep even the weakest or fewest members of society safe from harm?

What other answer is there?

a reply to: NavyDoc

The matter is really simple: do some Good Samaritan Laws in some states require persons to aid those in trouble?

The answer is yes. You said they didn't.

You're still trying to obfuscate that simple basic point.

But let it go. Let's move on to something else that doesn't require you to read my mind and know what I knew.

a reply to: NavyDoc

That i would be, i can always Promise and Guarantee a Fabulous time

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

That i would be, i can always Promise and Guarantee a Fabulous time

You should be free to pursue your dream, just like everyone else.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Depends on the law. No state government should discriminate. Private citizens should be free to make their own choices.

I've seen you argue endlessly for the sovereignty of State law on here. If the elected officials of the People make a law, why should anyone be able to deny that law or supersede it, since after the 10th Amendment, States have all power not reserved to the national, etc. etc.

Well the obvious answer for me and many others is if the State law is unconstitutional, it doesn't stand.

But let's leave the interminable Federal vs State question out of this ...

Here's the heart of your postulate:

Private citizens should be able to make their own choices.

That sounds great! I can do what i want free from all government interference.

But, I'm fairly sure, if pushed, you'd place a reasonable limit on that standard, yes?

Private citizens should be able to make their own choices about what they do as long as neither they nor anyone else is harmed. (Feel free to correct me if I've missteped here)

There's the rub, isn't it? What or when is harm done to another?

Does evoking distaste rise to the level of "harm"?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Depends on the law. No state government should discriminate. Private citizens should be free to make their own choices.

I've seen you argue endlessly for the sovereignty of State law on here. If the elected officials of the People make a law, why should anyone be able to deny that law or supersede it, since after the 10th Amendment, States have all power not reserved to the national, etc. etc.

Well the obvious answer for me and many others is if the State law is unconstitutional, it doesn't stand.

But let's leave the interminable Federal vs State question out of this ...

Here's the heart of your postulate:

Private citizens should be able to make their own choices.

That sounds great! I can do what i want free from all government interference.

But, I'm fairly sure, if pushed, you'd place a reasonable limit on that standard, yes?

Private citizens should be able to make their own choices about what they do as long as neither they nor anyone else is harmed. (Feel free to correct me if I've missteped here)

There's the rub, isn't it? What or when is harm done to another?

Does evoking distaste rise to the level of "harm"?

Certainly you should be able to make your own choices. It's not hard. Live and let live.

Doc:

I really don't want to leave this as a sore spot between us. We've been doing so well, lately.

Here's the very first thing I said about the Good Samaritan laws:

a reply to: NavyDoc

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.

It is true, I thought that the maxim that citizens must "render aid" to citizens was more widespread than it is.

I was aware that the Good Samaritan laws are in place to promote citizens rendering aid to each other, both by requiring aid, and by protecting the "Samaritian" from undue litigation and liability.

In my State, Georgia, we have separate laws that require us to render aid, but that is often referred to here as "The Good Samaritan law."

I mistakenly assumed that the two were one, and that was the case everywhere.

So, perhaps we were both right and wrong, eh?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Certainly you should be able to make your own choices. It's not hard. Live and let live.

You don't want to address the legal issues associated with, what I agree, is a great parable of life.

Golden Rule, etc.

Fine.

If everyone lived by the Golden Rule, we wouldn't need any laws, would we?

Too bad that Utopia doesn't exist, hasn't existed, and likely won't exist.

/shrug

Best, Doc. Peace.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Certainly you should be able to make your own choices. It's not hard. Live and let live.

You don't want to address the legal issues associated with, what I agree, is a great parable of life.

Golden Rule, etc.

Fine.

If everyone lived by the Golden Rule, we wouldn't need any laws, would we?

Too bad that Utopia doesn't exist, hasn't existed, and likely won't exist.

/shrug

Best, Doc. Peace.

We both want the same thing--that people get along. We just have different opinions as how that is achieved.

And, unto you, be peace.

Wa-Alaikum-Salaam

originally posted by: NavyDoc

And, unto you, be peace.

Wa-Alaikum-Salaam

That is absolutely priceless! LOL.

(I did laugh. Out loud.)

In return, considering both of our positions on the matter, I offer:

Namaste!

Namo vah.

Neti neti!

Given those two circumstances, how can it not make sense to extend government protection to those of different sexual orientations and gender identities? Even for Libertarians, isn't that one of the few accepted functions of government?

There are already so many protected classes and some of these protected still claim after 50 years that they are being discriminated against. As long as non-hetero orientations do not start claiming they make 20-25% less libertarians could care less about such a minimal law. Liberts do get annoyed by obvious lies that involve the economy. I don't really care if it were to pass as long as it included any orientation including hetero.
In libertarian world though they would use social norms and expect people to avoid not nice people. A libertarian would not be and are not amused by blatant attention seeking like; Hypothetically lets say a gay man went to a farm ran by a 70 year old pastor for a job and he says no. In situations like those its kind of like what'd you think that guy thought.

a reply to: jellyrev

Do you really believe that there is ZERO discrimination in this country today?

Do you have any examples of a successful libertarian system in the world? (Past or present.)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Neti neti!

Why so negative? You don't like positive vibes? Haan! Haan!

Flashbacks to Bangalore here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: jellyrev

Do you really believe that there is ZERO discrimination in this country today?

Do you have any examples of a successful libertarian system in the world? (Past or present.)

There are a myriad of examples of discrimination today, most of them coming from government or agencies of government.

a reply to: NavyDoc

So, no individual citizens discriminate unfairly against each other, at least, at the harmful level of action that these laws were originally intended to address?

We all live peacefully with each other, only oppressed by the government and its agencies?

~~~~

In regard to the other matter: "I y'am what I y'am."

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

So, no individual citizens discriminate unfairly against each other, at least, at the harmful level of action that these laws were originally intended to address?

We all live peacefully with each other, only oppressed by the government and its agencies?

~~~~

In regard to the other matter: "I y'am what I y'am."

There are rude assholes in every society. Laws, no matter how much you want, will not remove them. The best answer all around is individual freedom because when you empower the state to punish those who you do not like, you empower government to punish you, which is why one must be very careful what one demands.

I think you meant, Maiṁ jaisā hūṁ vaisā hūṁ