Utah gay wedding expo connects couples, friendly businesses

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Boadicea

You do not have the choice to discriminate...that is illegal

Of course I have the choice to discriminate. I can find lots of ways to discriminate regardless of what the law says. I can even directly violate whatever laws says I cannot discriminate against.

At which point you would use the color of law to force your will upon me via various penalties. Gotcha.

Making it a law doesn't make it right.... it just pretends that might makes right.

a reply to: Boadicea

well, in this case, disagreeing that discrimination should not be tolerated is ignorant.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: grainofsand

you can not serve for reasons that do not tread on their civil rights such as "hard to work with", "drunk", "defaults on payments all the time", etc, however, I would be careful citing one of those reasons to a minority without proof of it.

You cannot have the reason cited as "against my religion", its just like saying "hes black" or "hes jewish"...

That is not only stupid but illegal.

Yes, there are definitely legitimate reasons to refuse service. I know, I had a business. And I did throw a few customers out.

But, . . . . "certain people" . . . is not a reason to discriminate.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Boadicea

well, in this case, disagreeing that discrimination should not be tolerated is ignorant.

Says you... I would rather be "ignorant" than a bully and a tyrant. I would rather make that cake myself, or find someone who will happily do it with love in their heart, than to force someone to serve another's will.

I respect everyone's rights to live their life as they deem fit... I do not have to "tolerate" anything. Further, I find far more value and honor in rewarding and encouraging and promoting good behavior, than punishing and hating bad behavior.

a reply to: Boadicea

if I were you, I wouldn't open up a business to the public, just saying.

Fortunately, the side of Real Tolerance via Civil Rights is winning.

How sad that it has to be forced by law. But, it does.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Boadicea

if I were you, I wouldn't open up a business to the public, just saying.

Why? Are you presuming that because I respect the rights of others to refuse involuntary servitude that I must be racist? Homophobic? Or whatever label you want to put on me?

If so, you are very very wrong. I serve all kinds of people in all kinds of ways from the goodness of my heart as a labor of love. I don't need a law to force me to be good to others... and I don't want any laws that punish others for not bending to my will.

originally posted by: Annee
Fortunately, the side of Real Tolerance via Civil Rights is winning.

How sad that it has to be forced by law. But, it does.

No, only intolerance is winning... intolerance for people's inalienable natural right to say no. Those who advocate and cheer for such tyranny are simply replacing the previous tyranny with their own. Nothing good about that. That's not "winning," that's "beating."

There have always and will always be people willing to offer their services willingly and happily. There are plenty of ways to reward them while denying others without forcing anyone to do anything.

a reply to: Boadicea

I see how you are twisting it there to fit your small narrow mind...

discrimination is intolerable

a reply to: veracity

My mind -- and my heart -- are big enough to see beyond my own petty self. I understand that setting the best example and living according to higher truths is far more beneficial than forcing my petty will on others, because when people know better they do better. And those people will go on to set better examples and live according to higher truths, and thus help others to know better, and therefore do better. It embiggens all of us.

Force just creates conflict, disharmony and hate.

a reply to: Boadicea

wonderful words

what is being forced?

a reply to: Boadicea

Much good came out of ending government forced discrimination under color of law!!! There is a very big difference between people choosing to discriminate and people being forced to discriminate.

While segregation was indeed mandated by law throughout the South but segregation in the North was more often de facto. So if you're saying that anti-discrimination laws were unnecessary to end segregation and it was simply a matter of doing away with laws that compelled discrimination, then this is incorrect.

a reply to: Edumakated

Many business owners started to see they were leaving money on the table by discriminating against blacks. This is why you started seeing integration in sports long before some hillbilly diner.

This a drastic oversimplification and generally misguided.

Segregation in sports differed greatly between sports, competitive levels, region and era. Consider that the first black person to win a boxing world championship was Joe Gans in 1902. Jack Johnson won the first heavyweight title in 1908. Jesse Owens won how many medals in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin? Those are just a few examples. Put bluntly, white society as a whole was far more likely to accept black people competing in track and field or boxing (or any of a number of sports) alongside whites than allowing them the same access to public accommodations.

Profit motive cuts both ways and in fact there are examples of sports that became segregated. Horse racing is a prime example. 15 of the first 28 Kentucky Derbies were won by black jockeys. In fact, in 1875, 13 of 15 jockeys in the Kentucky Derby were black (Oliver Lewis, one of those black jockeys was the winning jockey). Isaac Murphy was the first black athlete to become a millionaire. He rode the winning horses in the Kentucky Derby in 1884, 1890, and 1891. Between 1875 and 1902, 11 black jockeys rode 15 Kentucky Derby winning horses. How many have won since James Winkfield in 1902? None.

This whole argument underscores a fundamental difference of opinion I have with modern American libertarians who tend to be heavily influenced by Austrian economics and so similar to communists, their opinions on most everything are based on economic theory that itself relies on inaccurate models of human behavior and ignoring empirical data in favor of axioms that only have the appearance of legitimacy in carefully constructed theoretical worlds.

a reply to: veracity

Exactly what we've been talking about of course. And I'm done playing these silly games. You've had your say, I've had mine, and everyone will judge for themselves.

a reply to: Boadicea

I know, you are talking about cake bakers being forced to bake gay cakes...

just so you know, they are NOT being forced to do that, they are in trouble bc of the poor choices they make, (ie discriminating).

Sorry you cannot understand this, maybe with time you will.

a reply to: theantediluvian

While segregation was indeed mandated by law throughout the South but segregation in the North was more often de facto. So if you're saying that anti-discrimination laws were unnecessary to end segregation and it was simply a matter of doing away with laws that compelled discrimination, then this is incorrect.

Yes and no.

I am definitely saying that segregation mandated by law (in the south or anywhere) did require a change in laws, as there is absolutely no place for discrimination in our government.

But in terms of voluntary segregation, I am saying there is no place for laws to end that discrimination. With a couple of exceptions, I have always lived in racially diverse areas in which there was no place for discrimination because there was no room for it in the people's hearts, so no laws were necessary. When de-segregation was being ordered by the courts, the joke in our school district was to ask if they were going to bus White kids into our schools.

Racists don't stop hating because of laws. In fact, for many, it just ingrains that hate for all the wrong reasons. Opening hearts and minds might take more effort and more time, but it will happen with patience and respect.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Boadicea

I know, you are talking about cake bakers being forced to bake gay cakes...

This is about so much more than baking cakes.

Sorry you cannot understand this, maybe with time you will.

a reply to: Boadicea

so its that, plus more? lol?

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Boadicea

I know, you are talking about cake bakers being forced to bake gay cakes...

This is about so much more than baking cakes.

Sorry you cannot understand this, maybe with time you will.

Not hardly.

I don't go backwards.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Boadicea

Much good came out of ending government forced discrimination under color of law!!! There is a very big difference between people choosing to discriminate and people being forced to discriminate.

While segregation was indeed mandated by law throughout the South but segregation in the North was more often de facto. So if you're saying that anti-discrimination laws were unnecessary to end segregation and it was simply a matter of doing away with laws that compelled discrimination, then this is incorrect.

a reply to: Edumakated

Many business owners started to see they were leaving money on the table by discriminating against blacks. This is why you started seeing integration in sports long before some hillbilly diner.

This a drastic oversimplification and generally misguided.

Segregation in sports differed greatly between sports, competitive levels, region and era. Consider that the first black person to win a boxing world championship was Joe Gans in 1902. Jack Johnson won the first heavyweight title in 1908. Jesse Owens won how many medals in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin? Those are just a few examples. Put bluntly, white society as a whole was far more likely to accept black people competing in track and field or boxing (or any of a number of sports) alongside whites than allowing them the same access to public accommodations.

Profit motive cuts both ways and in fact there are examples of sports that became segregated. Horse racing is a prime example. 15 of the first 28 Kentucky Derbies were won by black jockeys. In fact, in 1875, 13 of 15 jockeys in the Kentucky Derby were black (Oliver Lewis, one of those black jockeys was the winning jockey). Isaac Murphy was the first black athlete to become a millionaire. He rode the winning horses in the Kentucky Derby in 1884, 1890, and 1891. Between 1875 and 1902, 11 black jockeys rode 15 Kentucky Derby winning horses. How many have won since James Winkfield in 1902? None.

This whole argument underscores a fundamental difference of opinion I have with modern American libertarians who tend to be heavily influenced by Austrian economics and so similar to communists, their opinions on most everything are based on economic theory that itself relies on inaccurate models of human behavior and ignoring empirical data in favor of axioms that only have the appearance of legitimacy in carefully constructed theoretical worlds.

I don't think it is an over simplification. Yes, I'm aware of blacks being jockeys as well as many of our other successes outside of sports long before integration.

While I support the civil rights movement, I still believe that it would have happened regardless. We can debate if it would have taken longer, but greed knows no color. Economic freedom is the only freedom imho.

Probably a topic for another day, but I've often felt integration hurt blacks in many ways more than it helped. It destroyed our entrepreneurial spirit. We gained political power, but lost our economic power. Political power without economic power is just window dressing.

a reply to: Edumakated

While I support the civil rights movement, I still believe that it would have happened regardless. We can debate if it would have taken longer, but greed knows no color. Economic freedom is the only freedom imho.

I agree, and made a similar point.

Probably a topic for another day, but I've often felt integration hurt blacks in many ways more than it helped. It destroyed our entrepreneurial spirit. We gained political power, but lost our economic power. Political power without economic power is just window dressing.

Again, I agree, but I'd bet you have a better understanding of how and why than I do. I would love to hear you expand on that thought. I know that after the Civil War, there were many thriving Black businesses, and many thriving Black communities, which were destroyed by the force of law, as well as an angry White business community. I have no doubt that many former slaves were far more knowledgeable and capable of running a plantation/farm than were their White masters, and if given half a chance, probably would have thrived under their own skill and management.

In today's current economic malaise, I suspect we could all learn from the many ways that Blacks were economically repressed and outright denied their economic rights and power via color of law and regulation -- well, at least those of us willing to listen and learn.