Is English your first language?
Why yes, yes it is.
Though I am also relatively fluent in Spanish, can hold my own in German and Lithuanian, and can make out written Russian.
Why do you ask?
Is there another language that you would be more comfortable conversing in?
Yes, I do believe there’s all sorts of deception. And by it’s nature, there must be. In all cases this is government compelled behavior and a good deal of this is in the realm of thought crimes.
Even the way you phrase your argument is a deception. You characterize it as “businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks or gays” when I would characterize it as “businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone.” Which way do you think it gets articulated in a poll? Wait, I’ll answer - depends on who commissioned the poll.
I’m not the government. It’s nobody’s business except mine and my clients. And if I want to involve my business in some cause - that’s also my (and my clients’) business - not the government’s. Only the government can compel discrimination.
I guess I can’t help you.
Did I ask for your help?
I’m good, you are the one who is having difficulties understanding fairly simple concepts.
It may help if you tried actually listening to what people say (or reading what they write) rather than making up what you want them to say an arguing with that.
Okay, that’s actually funny.
Wow – talk about “artful” language! Here you manage to characterize government as the devil incarnate or the spawn of Satan “compelling” its hapless slaves to do its bidding! In reality, in a functional modern democracy, the government is the accountable agent of the people acting to advance the public interest and the greater societal good. The idea of the government “compelling behavior” is fundamentally inherent in any system of laws; the government “compels” behavior all the time, and we’re a reasonably civilized and socially coherent society because of it.
I phrase it that way to illustrate some common prejudices. In actual fact, businesses operating in public spaces benefiting from public infrastructure and offering commodity services to the general public should not be allowed to refuse services to anyone arbitrarily and without cause.
Depending on the merits of the cause, that really depends on the kind of society and the kind of world that you want to live in. If this were a perfect world we wouldn’t need the intervention of governments and justice systems, but it isn’t, and we do.
And only the government can prevent discrimination. Only the government can compel equal treatment when there is a cultural bias toward discrimination. This, like all libertarian arguments, only bolsters the case for good government rather than shitty government.
LGBT should have the same rights as anyone else, however, they should not get quotas or preferential treatment.
They should not expect the mainstream to accommodate their wishes just because they say they feel disenfranchised, nor should they expect others to compromise their beliefs ( Colorado Baker case ) in exchange for their own.
So who gets to say when they are being disenfranchised? Do you really draw a distinction being “feel like they are disenfranchised” and “actually disenfranchised”? Do you think this is a big problem, that people falsely claim to be disenfranchised? Do you think they have to wait for an official of some kind to spot it and then make an announcement? Do you think people have a right to sue in court if they feel wronged?
I sign a contract to work for an organization based upon a job description. Most job descriptions mention other duties as required. But there is a limitation on this. As an IT person, I don’t expect to hanging from a window washer harness cleaning windows. I’d object and rightly so. So, unless that JD mentions supporting the company in whatever goofy idea they get in their heads, then I shouldn’t be forced to do so. And by forced, I mean choosing between my job and doing said activity.
I said that the business can do these things if they choose to do so. Forcing employees to advocate for or promote these things is wrong. I wouldn’t quit if the company promoted LBGT rights, I’d potentially quit if they forced me to promote them (actually I wouldn’t quit for that particular reason, but I’m arguing the point that there will be something a company wants to promote that I wouldn’t be on board for and while I may not object working for the company promoting that thing, I don’t want to be forced to promote their agenda.)
I understand it. Companies see a benefit from promoting certain things. They either do it because they truly believe in that cause or because it makes sense to get on the bandwagon with everyone else. “See look at me! We’re the good guys! <as they artfully misdirect you from looking at the factory in Vietnam where they exploit underage workers>.”
I’m not entirely sure what a person is to do once they’ve got the term bigot branded onto their forehead. Are you going to hire them?
If a person believes their religion says gays will burn in hell then how are they a bigot for saying this? They are not putting people into hell, their god is. That is their truth. They can point to passages in their holy book to support their view. And if the only reason their belief becomes public knowledge is because they are forced to promote the company’s initiative, then why should they be penalized for this? They are also a ‘protected’ group. A nasty small minded group, but still protected.
It’s interesting that you’re the one that characterizes this as “the devil incarnate or the spawn of Satan” when I point out that this is simply compelled behavior and then you agree that all government action of this sort is the government compelling people to behave in a certain way.
So who gets to determine which “cause” for refusing service is okay? Let me guess - the government?
This totally amazes me. You want the masses to deliberate on the merits of a cause, enshrine in laws and regulations, and then use the government to enforce that belief system. But what really amazes me is that you seem to think this can’t possibly go wrong.
That’s simply not true. The government can compel discrimination just as it did in many places with Jim Crow laws.
Without some massive enforcement bureaucracy collecting data, secret shopping businesses, sampling behaviors, and investigating any suspicious case (you told that nice Muslim couple that you couldn’t do that vacation shoot because you were booked already - show me your records), the government can’t compel this sort of behavior. There are a million reasons people discriminate. I would suggest you simply not use that purveyor if you suspect they have beliefs you don’t agree with. And that’s what we’re really talking about - the government controlling beliefs.
Forcing employees to advocate for equal legal rights for everyone is unobjectionable. You have literally no reason to object.
As a matter of fact, yes. See the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.THe Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against certain protected classes, such as race. Almost immediately after the Act was passed, Heart of Atlanta, a hotel, filed suit against the United States, claiming the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because the government didn’t have the authority to tell him whom his business could and couldn’t serve. SCOTUS found the CRA of 1964 was constitutional because the government does, in fact, have the right to regulate commerce. It’s right there in the Commerce Clause.
In the Colorado baker case, the baker/owner, Jack Phillips, has the right to his religious beliefs. He can’t be compelled to violate his religious beliefs to provide a service to gay customers. However, Masterpiece Cakes does NOT have that right. If it wants to operate in the public marketplace, it cannot refuse to provide public accommodations to a protected class, such as veterans, the elderly, women, Blacks, Whites, Jews, or Christians. In Colorado, sexual orientation has been a protected class since 2008. (That includes heterosexuals, by the way.)
But it can’t. While SCOTUS decided in Plessy v. Fergusson (1896) that “separate but equal” is Constitutional, that decision was overturned by Brown v. The Board of Education (1954). The latter decision stands. The government CANNOT compel discrimination as it did in Jim Crow Laws. That’s called progress.
The government doesn’t need to collect all this. When a civil case arises, the complainant must provide proof of discrimination. This does not require the level of data collection you describe, even for the complainant. .
Nope. Doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way. SCOTUS recognized in* Heart of Atlanta* that refusal of service is about more than deprivation; it’s about stripping individuals of dignityby turning them away discriminately. And my getting served while you have to continue driving from purveyor to purveyor, perhaps many miles apart, simply because of your ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, is inequitable.
Nope. You as an individual can believe whatever you want. A business, however, must abide by the laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. If Phillips wants to benefit from the public marketplace, his business must abide by the rules of that marketplace.
Sure I do…
…
…
…
And I should be under no obligation to explain to anyone why. Of course, I could say I think the law already makes everyone equal and that grouping people into arbitrary silos just perpetuates an us vs them mentality, but that just glazes people’s eyes over. It’s easier to call me a bigot.
You can tell an employee they must comply with the law and company policy, but you shouldn’t be able to force them to advocate for your political cause.
Well, the thing about America, is that the whole point is that you can express any thought you have, and no one can stifle you from doing so.
The point that most people don’t understand is that it is the right to expression that is protected, not the content of your message. So the legal authorities won’t come after you because you espouse any particular sentiments.
What the law doesn’t protect you from is the public reaction to your message. Let the Nazis march wherever they please, because it behooves us to let their message out, and let it die in the public forum, where the vast majority of reasonable folks will voice disagreement.
So to get back to the point of the OP, of course you can disagree with the entire LGBTQ community, and sing that disapproval loud and proud. Once you do, you have to be alright with others expressing their reactions. Conversely, it doesn’t take too long for a thoughtful person to say to themselves “OK, I hold an opinion contrary to what seems to be the general consensus, and since I don’t want to deal with an almighty wave of backlash, maybe I won’t put this opinion of mine out into a public space, until I am ready to deal in an adult manner with those who disagree with me.”
If you don’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then don’t, but you cannot then say that you are the victim when people who disagree with that stance choose another baker for their confectionery needs after the fact.
However, the only thing that I’ve noticed that crosses the line a bit from the other side, is the insistence that others use a preferred set of alternative pronouns. If you were to ask me to use a different set, I might very well do so, but you can’t demand I use them. It would not constitute violating your basic human rights, but you are free to think and say I am insensitive to you, or you might say my view is backwards. All fair play. But I cannot be forced to use or not use language. Jordan Peterson has made this point, and I think he gets a lot of flak when he attempts to make this point because most people see it as an attack against the Trans community, but it’s much more a protection of free speech. If we allow people to truthfully express themselves, we can much more effectively figure out who we should listen to, and who is someone we perhaps shouldn’t.
So in summation, holding a dissenting opinion from most of American society isn’t taboo, it just won’t make you win any popularity contests, which is what social media is, isn’t it?
Totally agreed. If you become known as the “No-gays” baker, then you have to accept the consequences. That’s the whole point of taking an unpopular stance.
Don’t you know that Jordan B. Peterson is alt-right neo-nazi gay-bashing trans-killing monster? 
Joking aside, even that extremely tame stance “don’t force my speech” is something between hate speech and Iranian mullah for many people. He takes it in stride and tears down the arguments with his particular brand of dry humor.
Translation: “I’m going to engage in the exact same level of strawmanning I just claimed was a joke, but this time without the disclaimer.”
One can’t help but notice that you do this reframing of other people’s views to make them appear much more extremist frequently, while simultaneously accusing the other side of doing it.
[QUOTE]
Anyone who like JBT knows he’s presented as such by his enemies. So this isn’t strawmanning or “extremising,” it’s par for the course for comments on JBT, hence the in-joke.
Could one be so kind as to provide an example?
Well, I guess there’s no need for debate - settled matter and all.
I took his meaning to be sarcastic, and I 100% expected someone to bring the outrage at the mere mention of Peterson… it should be said that the man has thought through his argument. I think the sarcasm of the reply got lost in transit somewhere.