I’m a very short and very swarty Filipino but I think this racist tag ia mainly intended to put someone or some people at a disadvantage. I mean, there are whole number of ways to insult or discriminate against people and I’ve swallowed most if them. I will cry the r word only if there is clear detrimental bias against someone or some-many. Elsewise, you can throw anything at my face (at your own risk of course.)
Since two posters made an argument, I’ll answer that here:
It’s important to distinguish between a right being overridden by a clear compelling interest of the government and a right not existing at all. RIghts are not surrendered in situations, as in you don’t lose your rights when you start a business. However, because Congress can regulate commerce, and because there are other people’s rights at stake in business dealings, necessary balancing has to take place, unlike in the social sphere, where your right to discriminate is near absolute.
Given that it’s been cited on SDMB many times that businesses are considered persons for the purposes of exercise of constitutional rights in most cases, it’s pretty annoying that posters keep on trying to make distinctions like that. We can debate whether businesses should have such rights, but the fact that they do has been established for a very long time.
And since private business consists of private transactions, there are all forms if discrimination. So? Deal with someone you like.
Wow. I just assumed **adaher **was a bad writer, and he meant that the GLBT community was going in pursuit of the freedoms that the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn’t carve out.
I’m glad he clarified his position that he feels his precious liberties infringed.
Well, I guess we all have our liberties infringed by having to associate with adaher. And his first amendment rights to say idiotic shit infringes on our right to the pursuit of happiness, but we all have to make sacrifices.
Lovely bit of empty verbiage. Business owners retain some rights, but lose others. Yep: that’s pretty much true.
You misunderstand. THe CRA covers only public accommodations. It does not cover personal services at a location of your choosing. As of today, a Christian wedding planner can refuse to do an interfaith wedding. As of today, they can refuse a gay wedding. So yes, in order to conscript such people into arranging gay weddings, you would have to go further than the CRA does.
Those aren’t the only two options. There’s also the possibility of different entities inherently possessing the same right in varying degrees.
For the purposes of exercise of some constitutional rights. Are you trying to argue that non-human corporate entities have the right to marry, for example?
No, you have definitely not established that we should take it for granted that corporate employers (or other types of entities and institutions) are automatically entitled to the same associational rights as individuals have in their personal lives and in private groups.
You speak of “rights” as if they exist in a vacuum. The kind of “fuck you, I have the right to do whatever I want” attitude that has gotten us to this pass in the first place. An attitude we all need to shed.
Does this mean that our 1st amendment rights should be limited in cases where our speech is offensive?
eek!
This.
“This” is the wrongest thing ever posted by anyone, ever. I live in South Florida, and if you knew anything about my associations you’d be embarrassed to say that.
I’m glad someone brought up Starving Artist, because it highlights a common fallacy in arguing about issues like this: moral panic. Any issue where there is a moral panic, logical discussion is impossible because there will always be several posters who have been conditioned to respond to any statement whose implications they don’t agree with with shock and anger.
Racists Anonymous? Isn’t that just the Klan?
Are you under the impression that Starving Artist was engaged in logical discussion in the thread of which we speak?
I don’t know. I haven’t read it. THe point is valid regardless though, because it is very unlikely that any discussion on pedophilia would be enlightening. For example, are people born that way or is it a choice? Bet that discussion wouldn’t stay fact-based long.
Likewise, if I was to ask posters here, “Is racial discrimination legal?”, the correct answer is, “It depends”, but a lot of posters would reflexively say “NO!” and double down on it despite being wrong on the facts.
Yes; it’s a term of relativity. Like jumbo shrimp.
Boy you are clueless uh? Reaching for the “some of my best friends are black” is a common defence coming from racists, in any case I do not think you are one, just an enabler.
Speaking of being clueless, what happened with SA was that he began to defend Paterno and the condemned manager by attempting to discredit the witnesses with really idiotic “thought experiments” involving cardboard tubes that only came as very gross and nonsensical apologies to what the paedophile did, and then he doubled and tripled down by using that and other very stupid defences repeatedly, never mind that virtually no one agreed with his tactic and stupid excuses and thought experiments.
Many did not feel any “moral panic” but moral pity for someone that only demonstrated to all how much of an intellectual midget he was/is.
I agree it’s a poor defense against racism, but it is a good defense against the accusation made, that I live in a racial bubble.
You do live however in a right wing conservative bubble, and it has to be point out that day in and day out they are poisoning the discussion and they are not willing to deal with the reality that many of the ones that they support nowadays are not only pandering to prejudiced people like before, but they are now even making laws to benefit the nativists, racists and bigots.
I don’t live in a bubble in that respect either and it’s easy to prove. I’m here, ain’t I? Plus I read more liberal blogs than conservative ones. And also, some of my best friends are liberals.
And you jest, but you are conveniently forgetting what I told you before, as in the case of the climate science deniers (that are almost all Republicans) you are only showing that you are willing to say something (that you are not fooled by them regarding climate science) but by golly you will continue to supporting them in their efforts to poison the discussion.
It is like a pamphleteer that knows that indeed the product is shitty, but it will continue to distribute them because it is, somehow, a “living”.