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.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 26
49
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If they are discriminating yes. Shouldn't gays not be treated like second class citizens by businesses that offer goods and services to the public as well?


I don't think they should be treated poorly. That goes against my code of ethics. The question is, how far am I willing to use the coercive force of government to enforce my moral code on others? I don't think we should ban abortion for example. Don't like it? Don't have one. No legislation necessary,




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Cuervo

pyramid head

Maybe you should spend less time being an authoritarian and forcing your views on everyone and more time worrying about the criminals in Washington who are allowing privately owned offshore mega-banks to steal from our country and militarize our police.

There literally could not be anything less important than this going on.


Why don't you tell that to the people who spent all the time fussing about gay people eating in their restaurants? They are the ones who thought it was more important than the "criminals in Washington" in the first place.


Their town, their business. Clearly that's what they want there. Why is this important that some business does not want to serve certain people? Because they don't agree with you? They are also not proclaiming this as news, you are, this is apparently important in this area. Unless you live there, who cares what some town in Kansas is doing with business practices.

You should go to every town in America to make sure they agree with you, there might be someone out there who doesn't .






posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I'm so glad we've gotten a lot of our "head-buttin'" out of the way ... I really enjoy your way of thinking.

aww shucks... Well...took me a bit to understand you weren't just being a jerk trying to troll...I honestly thought you were just a hard headed troll at first. LOL. Then I learned we could actually have a discourse.




In the real world, there are few absolutes. In political discussion, well, everything is absolute ... BS. LOL

You know I think we need to leave the Democratic/Republican dichotomies behind us. I believe in the American way that I was taught in the 70s and 80s. I believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Even for those who have gently divergences or rampant raging differences ... we used to be able to focus on the commonalities to get things done. Even in Congress, once upon a time.

I agree...politics can be crazy. I am a mixed breed of sorts: I intensely dislike politicians of any flavor (perhaps one day my faith will be restored), I am extremely conservative fiscally, I am mixed social liberal/conservative (figure that one out LOL) or, as I like to put it: logical

I too believe in the Constitution and feel that the govt has strayed mightily from it. I wish we could toss the politicians out and have an honest and true conversation regarding the big issues of the country and leave the Kardashians out of it (LOL). These days, it is hard to have a truthful conversation without being accused of being some kind of bigot. Specially if you espouse a single conservative ideal. This is why our country will never, ever be a true democracy where the citizens vote directly on legislation etc. Too many voters are extremely ignorant (on both sides of the fence) and just too uninterested in details to be able to make reasonable decisions (IMO).



I was very heartened to see the Kansas Senate take the action that it did. Barring some Christian Theocratic Revolution in this country, Marriage Equality will be the Law of the Land in a few short years, I believe. I'd like to think that would mean that we could all forget about the meaningless crap that the Media get's us all stirred up about (and that's left-wing, right-wing, chicken-wing media) and get down to business again and take care of this Country.

Meh...as long as I am not propositioned I am ok and could care less what they do. I love women so I guess that gives me much in common with the lesbian crowd LOL.



You won't be surprised to discover that I disagree about "protected classes" as it were. It's all too obvious that given the chance, we will find some reason, some aspect, some difference in our fellow citizens to try to exert control over. As long as that is true, there will have to be some level of government that keeps us from that natural tendency.

The whole Tribal thing will not be going away.

To me, the last sentence above is all the more reason to stick to the letter of the law (Constitution) and all are equal. No one "more" equal than another. Protected classes are just another form of discrimination which, you have to admit, just maintains hard feelings between groups that may not get along together extremely well to begin with (yes, a generalization, but you get the idea).
The only way we are ever going to have a chance to get past racial/ethnic discrimination is to eliminate institutionalized forms of discrimination and make it so everyone can feel equal. As long as govt mandated discrimination continues there will be ill feelings, there will be those who will take advantage of it to the best of their abilities and there will be those who will use that as an excuse to perpetrate their own forms of discrimination. At least, that is my humble opinion.

I will give you a personal example: My youngest daughter worked her butt off in High School. Seriously...she amazed me. When time came for her to go to college she qualified to apply for the President's Scholarship (basically a full boat ride). She was practically a shoo in, with one exception. Some one much less qualified could be chosen due to racial/ethnic differences. How much (IMO) of a miscarriage of justice would it be if she (with her ACT score of 31 along with her High School record) did not get the scholarship and someone who barely made an attempt to learn in High School were to get it simply because they were a member of a "protected class". Is that fair? Is that fair to someone who planned their classes out as a freshman to make sure she had the room to learn what she wanted to? And then stuck to it, making one change in her plan to include a class that was not available when she made her plan.

As an employer, it seems bizarre to me that at times we have to choose the lesser qualified (sometimes much less) in order to avoid trouble with the govt.

In a nutshell, I just believe we deserve what we earn, and earn what we deserve. I could have augmented my education (geology does nothing for me in business lol) but chose not to simply because I didn't want to spend the time. That was my choice and I ask for no special treatment because I may be disadvantaged educationally vs some of my competitors.




When I was growing up, I figured that we'd all be well educated, science-oriented, starship captains with flying cars by now.

Boy, did I miss that one.


OMG that is so right! Even as a college kid I figured by now we would be approaching the Star Trek type of society...as in truly enlightened and above materialism.

Yeah, right.....
edit on 19-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
See, Bracken ... I don't understand "protected class" that way. I assume that we're talking about those specific qualities enumerated in Federal Law, right (this list is copied from Wikipedia for convenience)

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Individual states can and do create other protected classes, which are protected under that state's law.

Now to me, and to you, when our traditions tell us that we should treat everyone Equally we understand what that means. Doesn't mean we have to like them, just that we can't say: "Hey, all you Native American Pregnant Pagan Veterans, get to the end of the line!"

We all know that these Acts were required, however, because some folks just can't play square. This is where some call it government interference and I call it justice: in America, the government stands up for anyone who is being mistreated BEFORE THE LAW. It's not like Uncle Sam puts on a Superman cape and flies around the city looking for kittens to save.

It's the assurance of equality before the law. And, in regard to the above situations outlined, it also provides further protection to peoples' religions.

Now, you and I may look at some of the members of the list up there and think ... why should they get special treatment, and the answer, at least for me, is that way of looking at it is backward: they're listed up there to PREVENT them from receiving "special" treatment, i.e unfair or illegal discrimination.

And to me, that's one of the few things that a Government SHOULD be doing.

Now, as to Affirmative Action, quotas, etc., that's a case by case basis for me. My old line of thinking used to be "you can't end discrimination by discriminating." That may still be true.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 

Not much time this morning so I will make it as quick as possible. Regarding "protected classes":

Due to "protected class" status, in the apartment/rental industry it may very well become illegal to run a background check on a prospective tenant, since that may result in discrimination against african americans.
Due to protected class status, it may very well become illegal to run a background check on a prospective employee for the same reason.



The EEOC does state that whenever a minority applicant is excluded from employment because of a criminal background check, that national data “supports” a finding of racial discrimination due to disproportionate rates of minority incarceration rates vis-à-vis others. Seemingly, employers can—and are being—investigated by the EEOC for conducting across-the-board or blanket criminal background checks regardless of whether there is evidence of overt racial discrimination and discriminatory intent because, as the EEOC maintains, the mere exclusion of a minority applicant because of a criminal conviction “supports” a finding of racial discrimination.


Of course, as you can imagine, this "finding" is being tested in the court system. It is unconscionable that an employer would not be able to protect his business by choosing not to hire a felon. It is unconscionable that a landlord would not be able to protect his employees, residents and property by refusing to rent to a felon.

I do not have a problem with the elimination of discrimination by laws that provide for equality for all, but apparently equal is not equal. Whether you are a white felon, or a black felon makes all the difference here. That just should not be the case.
If the rule (by a business) to refuse to hire ANYONE with a felony conviction how can that be discriminatory? The rule is being applied "across the board". To even imply that background checks are being used to intentionally discriminate is stupid to the nth degree, provided the rule applies to all.

The same application of the "finding" is being applied in the multifamily industry (apartments) for the same reasons. This is govt intervention run rampant.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 





There is one more caveat. In March 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a Final Rule to formalize a national standard to determine whether a housing practice violates the Fair Housing Act as a result of the discriminatory effect. Brett Woodburn wrote about the same in a previous article. Based upon Federal Courts’ rulings, the Final Rule provides that liability under the Fair Housing Act may be established based upon a showing that a neutral practice has a disparate impact on a protected class. This could bring into question the practice of denying housing just because a criminal background check shows past convictions, especially if those decisions to deny housing have a disparate impact on a certain protected class.




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
It just so happens that Fair Housing Laws directly impact my business on a daily basis.

I HOPE that the finding is that as long as a screening practice is applied consistently, i.e. all new tenants or new hires, then the possibility of unfair discrimination drops to near zero.

I HOPE that is the finding in these court cases.

I can't imagine that any one involved professionally in real estate transactions would take a chance on violating any of these laws, because believe me, the penalties are steep and it is VERY easy to transgress these laws unintentionally. Strict policies have to be put in place to control for that risk.

Here's my thing: if we were not, at large, a unfairly discriminating folk, we would not need this [ABSOLUTELY ABSURD] level of regulation. I think that's the inverse position of most here, but, nonetheless.

Were I the Emperor of the Universe, I would make certain that no one got away with "gaming" the system on either side of the fence.

I've yet to be elected to that office, though ...
edit on 10Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:06:59 -060014p102014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
To me, this bill is just reenforcement of the right to be a bigoted douchebag...but with freedoms and private ownership really does come that right. This is where hopefully society will step in and avoid businesses like this and the businesses will fail, hopefully teaching the bigoted owners a hard financial and social lesson.

That said, it's hard not to back the right of an individual who owns a private business to conduct his/her business as they see fit. I don't have to agree with it--in this case, I abhor it--but I have to respect and appreciate the right to do so.

Some say with great "power" comes great responsibility; I say with great "freedom" comes great responsibility, and those who wield their freedom irresponsibly, they'll get what they deserve in the end (if thay are in a just society).

The bill should state that they must post a sign for all to see if they are going to conduct their business this way, that way people like me could avoid their store and take our business to someone with some damn common sense.
edit on 20-2-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I totally understand and agree.

While I am not positive, I am fairly sure that there was an attempt to force just that (even though the screening process was evenly and correctly applied to prospective tenants) and rental communities were cited in a single state up in the NE somewhere. I read this in a professional publication but have no idea which or exactly when. I just know that it was sometime in the last 6 or 8 months. At 59 my memory can be a bit fuzzy at times. I blame it on trying to cram too much into a finite space and leakage occurs LOL

The whole point and direction of this new finding was that even if applied consistently in an unbiased manner with zero attempt at discrimination that the end result was an "adverse affect" on a minority due to the fact that there was such a higher ratio of convictions.

So...I guess felons are the new "protected class" LOL

This is, for me, a classic example of why discrimination must be neutral in all forms... we cannot have govt supported/required discrimination. People will be a$$hats....but to feel that it is ok for our govt to follow suit with institutionalized discrimination is inexcusable. If the govt wants to prevent citizens from discriminating, then the rule must apply doubly to our govt. Either the law of the land (Constitution) applies to all, or it is TP.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I totally understand and agree.

While I am not positive, I am fairly sure that there was an attempt to force just that (even though the screening process was evenly and correctly applied to prospective tenants) and rental communities were cited in a single state up in the NE somewhere. I read this in a professional publication but have no idea which or exactly when. I just know that it was sometime in the last 6 or 8 months. At 59 my memory can be a bit fuzzy at times. I blame it on trying to cram too much into a finite space and leakage occurs LOL

The whole point and direction of this new finding was that even if applied consistently in an unbiased manner with zero attempt at discrimination that the end result was an "adverse affect" on a minority due to the fact that there was such a higher ratio of convictions.

So...I guess felons are the new "protected class" LOL

This is, for me, a classic example of why discrimination must be neutral in all forms... we cannot have govt supported/required discrimination. People will be a$$hats....but to feel that it is ok for our govt to follow suit with institutionalized discrimination is inexcusable. If the govt wants to prevent citizens from discriminating, then the rule must apply doubly to our govt. Either the law of the land (Constitution) applies to all, or it is TP.



Well, from my specific perspective, and particular experiences (in other words, anecdotal evidence, LOL) what really gets me is when We the People HAVE made additional laws, departments, etc., to "doubly" insure that the rights of some groups that have been traditionally discriminated unfairly against are protected now ... and then individuals (belonging to those noticed groups) who have NEVER in their LIVES faced such issues continually use decades-ago or centuries-ago unfairnesses to justify whatever selfish actions suit them in the present.

I see our situation as a compromise between individual and group and national liberty. Our ever evolving systems of governance and judiciary have always been far from perfect, but, at some level there has always been forward movement.

Yet, I don't see much appreciation anymore for being American ... and that goes for Libs, Cons, Dems, Reps, TPers, etc.

It's like everyone hates the "America" I know ... and that at times is hard to take.

Your mileage will vary.

edit on 15Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:28:07 -060014p032014266 by Gryphon66 because: I fixed stuff.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Navydoc and I had a long vicious interpersonal debate about property rights, et. al. Our disagreement became personal and that is unfortunate. HOWEVER, that has prompted me to refresh my understanding of the issues: I've discovered a few things I'd like to share with any one interested. This is not offered as a debate item, merely information.

A great article published in the Marquette Law Review in 1968 (a crucial year for these questions) provides an excellent summary of the intersection of property rights, unfair discrimination and Civil Rights Acts at the Federal Level. The article is titled "What is a Place of 'Public' Accommodation" by Alfred Avins. It is an amazing piece of scholarship with hundreds of specific references to case law at the State and Federal levels. Here's the link: Avins - Public Accomodation.

It will take you some time to work through it, but Mr. Avins starts with the English Common Law and brings the matter forward (at least through 1968). Trust me, or read for yourself, these exact same questions that we have batted about in this thread have been fought over for centuries. It's not a new question.

The idea that the State (or in this case, the Crown) had a regulatory voice in certain industries (common carriers, inns, and theaters, oddly enough) derives from the fact that in England, these were often given exclusive licenses within a certain area, to operate. The idea (that our Founders hated so badly) of Government Chartered Businesses and Monopolies.

These businesses could regulated in regard to who they could serve, and the answer was, since they were deemed to be quasi-public interests (due to the charters) that they had to acknowledge the right of free male citizens. (We're still along way from equality, baby** ... LOL). Since the Colonies adopted English law whole scale in most cases, the idea of the Common Law has prevailed in the US as well. This is the source of the concept of public accommodation that is so hotly debated.


** This is a reference to a series of advertisements for Virginia Slim cigarettes in the 70s, (targetted at a female audience)
"You've come a long way, baby." Implying of course, that over the 20th Century, the lot of women in general had changed. Anyway, dating myself alongside dirt ...

edit on 16Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:05:04 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: Explanatory note.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If they are discriminating yes. Shouldn't gays not be treated like second class citizens by businesses that offer goods and services to the public as well?


I don't think they should be treated poorly. That goes against my code of ethics. The question is, how far am I willing to use the coercive force of government to enforce my moral code on others? I don't think we should ban abortion for example. Don't like it? Don't have one. No legislation necessary,


I agree with your premise regarding "how far am I willing to use the coercive power of govt to enforce my moral code on others". This is the question, one I fear, that is not asked often enough. For those in authority it is too easy for them to exercise this power.

I think the abortion issue is a whole nuther question though. If a restaurant refuses to serve me because I wear a funny looking hat no one is harmed. Sure, my feelings may be hurt, but that's about it.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


No time now, but I will digest (or attempt to) the link you provided. Thanks, as always!

Oh, and I am there witch ya regarding Virginia Slims and dirt lol



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


And I will cast the first vote! Provided of course you pass a background check.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Kansas Restaurant Kicks Gay Man Out, Tells Him “No Gay Eating Here”
Even before it becomes law, some are already deciding to take matters into their own hands and start the entire process, without legal justification or reason. This is the first time I have seen in a long time, or have heard about such where a person has been actively discriminated by sheer bigotry, hatred and ignorance all cause that people do not accept another person.

The sad part about this is that now people will jump to conclusion all in fear and hatred of what they feel is intolerable in their eyes. My how we have gone back, and here the question is what will happen when people take this to the next level? After all here they are looking and stating that right now it is gay couples. One must wonder what will happen if say 2 businessmen who meet every day to have lunch together and tend to work closely before people make the suggestion that they are not allowed to eat at an establishment, all cause someone suspects that they are gay, then what? How does one prove one way or the other that a person is or is not gay?


If anything this proves the statement: I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy, you can only punish. And I warn you, that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys every one it touches. Its upholders as well as its defiers.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   

bbracken677

NavyDoc

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If they are discriminating yes. Shouldn't gays not be treated like second class citizens by businesses that offer goods and services to the public as well?


I don't think they should be treated poorly. That goes against my code of ethics. The question is, how far am I willing to use the coercive force of government to enforce my moral code on others? I don't think we should ban abortion for example. Don't like it? Don't have one. No legislation necessary,


I agree with your premise regarding "how far am I willing to use the coercive power of govt to enforce my moral code on others". This is the question, one I fear, that is not asked often enough. For those in authority it is too easy for them to exercise this power.

I think the abortion issue is a whole nuther question though. If a restaurant refuses to serve me because I wear a funny looking hat no one is harmed. Sure, my feelings may be hurt, but that's about it.


True enough.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I apologize if someone else has posted this but Idaho is one of those states that is waging an outright war against LGBT community. They want legally married same sex couples to have to file separate state income tax. They are also refusing to add the words to law that would protect LGBT from discrimination. They were recently considering the same type of law as Kansas that would allow people and businesses to refuse to serve LGBT based solely on gender identity and whether it violated their religious values. We have fought this battle before in America where blacks were seen as less than human and not warranting the full protection of the law.
As a christian I question the vehement attack on LGBT by religious people who are told to love their enemies, to feed and clothe, to go the extra mile. The bible offers no exception for their lifestyles. If they spent as much effort on confronting the sin of gluttony there would be a lot healthier people sitting in their pews.
Let the world know God by the love we show others not by the hate, anger and prejudice thrown against the LGBT community.
edit on 06/02/2011 by grayeagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

sdcigarpig
Kansas Restaurant Kicks Gay Man Out, Tells Him “No Gay Eating Here”
Even before it becomes law, some are already deciding to take matters into their own hands and start the entire process, without legal justification or reason. This is the first time I have seen in a long time, or have heard about such where a person has been actively discriminated by sheer bigotry, hatred and ignorance all cause that people do not accept another person.

The sad part about this is that now people will jump to conclusion all in fear and hatred of what they feel is intolerable in their eyes. My how we have gone back, and here the question is what will happen when people take this to the next level? After all here they are looking and stating that right now it is gay couples. One must wonder what will happen if say 2 businessmen who meet every day to have lunch together and tend to work closely before people make the suggestion that they are not allowed to eat at an establishment, all cause someone suspects that they are gay, then what? How does one prove one way or the other that a person is or is not gay?


If anything this proves the statement: I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy, you can only punish. And I warn you, that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys every one it touches. Its upholders as well as its defiers.


I am happy that no one is eating a gay man in that restaurant...whew!



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
While sitting here and reading different news articles and postings and getting ready for work, having to multitask, and looking at the new AZ state law that is mimicking this law and is now awaiting to see if Gov. Brewer signs it or not, a thought occurred to me and one that would have an impact on the entire idea of having laws like this in place.

By having a law like this in place, and one that legally protects a person on the grounds of discrimination, just put made the following more complicated and far worse for everyone, including those who would think that this law is a good idea, and that is that will inevitably impact the Justice system 100%. Think about it, a gay man gets arrested or is brought into a court of law, in one of these states; now prove that he is going to get a fair trial with all of his rights. What if the state cannot provide for him a lawyer, then does he sit in jail for years without benefit of a trial, or if it does, can the state guarantee that without bias, or malice, that it did protect and ensure the rights of the individual as guaranteed in the Constitution of the USA, as citizens of the country?

What about if a person is sick and goes to the hospital, can it be guaranteed that the doctor will do everything possible to save the person’s life, or would they be open to law suits and allegations of malpractice cause of bias on the part of the doctor or the medical staff, believing that they were targeted for being of a different religion, or falsely accused of being gay?
Ultimately, these kinds of laws are money pits, drawing money from the working people to defend in court, when they should not be passed in the first place. They are often badly written and written with the full intent to be insulting and ultimately will cause more problems in the long run for everyone, than the few it means to protect.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I definitely understand your point, however I feel that the issues you have brought up either already exist without the law or exceed the scope of the law.

Can anyone be guaranteed that your doctor will do whatever they can to save your life etc? Or is that just the perception we have? Given the thousands of doctors out there it is unreasonable to assume that they are all working with our best interests in mind. They are just as human as you, I and Jeffrey Dahmer, if you get my drift.

I believe most, if not all, of what you brought up is entirely outside the scope of the law being discussed.

Personally I worry more about the Patriot Act and the "in your face" discrimination (not related) as exercised by our federal govt.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join