Are Democrats a big tent party? Should they be?

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

Perhaps this would be better-suited for another entry in the unpopular opinions thread. I REALLY don’t want to turn this into a big derailment of this thread, so please, if you’re interested in having a larger discussion on the matter, let’s take it to another thread. With that disclaimer out of the way:

Yes, I think it’s fair to say that I have a much broader view of (what I will now couch in terms of a Constitutional right) the freedom of assembly than our current federal jurisprudence and legislation does. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

If I were to have my druthers, I think I’d exempt the private sector from the protected class requirements and allow them to give full force to those “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” signs. At the same time, I would hope and encourage them to not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, sex, etc. but I don’t think using the force of government to enforce that on individuals is an appropriate use of government’s power. That view is probably somewhat situational, in that I don’t feel it’s very likely that there would be massive or widespread discrimination in today’s economy if, for example, those portions of the CRA were repealed.

This isn’t really a derailment of the thread, in that you have defined a boundary that I would not accept a democrat crossing.

If you held your view for optimistic reasons, that we don’t need anti-discrimination laws because there isn’t discrimination anymore, then I would disagree with that optimism, but I wouldn’t really be able to be upset about it. It is hard for me to get angry at people fro being optimistic.

But, I would disagree with you in that the idea that “no one may be compelled to belong to an association” doesn’t mean anything when you have voluntarily put your services into the public sphere. No one can compel someone to bake a cake for them, for any reason at all, unless that person has chosen to open to the public and bake cakes for the public. At that point, the public does have an interest in making sure that those who are using the public resources for their personal gain do so without discriminating against members of the public.

As discrimination is currently fairly widespread in spite of laws against it (it is actually really hard to prove that you didn’t hire, or fired, an employee for illegal reasons, and even harder to determine that is the case for clients), and we are not that far removed from times when it was not only open, but encouraged and sometimes even the law, I don’t think that we are anywhere near the level where getting rid of the laws will not cuase a fairly immediate and drastic increase of minority abuse.

So, much as you may think this is a derailment, you are right on track here. Your opinion that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary or even in violation of the UDoHR is one that is irreconcilable. I would consider someone with that view to be well outside of the tent that is the democratic party.

I can accept democrats who are personally anti-abortion, and I can even accept democrats who would allow or even push for legislation limiting elective abortions past 20 weeks, so long as exceptions are allowed for health of the mother and cases where the child is a product of rape or incest, and they don’t really touch anything under 12 weeks. (or limit access to contraception and the education to use it properly)

I can accept democrats who are pro-gun. Pretty much anything short of demanding that everyone carry a gun at all times, I don’t really care. I may disagree with them on the policies that they would go for, but I wouldn’t consider pretty much any reasonable view on guns as being a non-starter.

But, as far as minority protections go, that one’s actually pretty important, and a bit of a defining characteristic. I could certainly accept a democrat who looks into tweeking anti-discrimination laws or affirmative action initiatives to achieve more favorable results, but I could not accept a democrat who was willing to remove those protections entirely.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Airbeck

Since you keep trying to make this discussion about me, rather than your own arguments, I’m inclined to refrain from participating in this side track further since I think this is now becoming detrimental to the discussion in this thread. I stated that your examples were ridiculous, and I stand by that. The fact is I was not participating in this thread prior to your post that I replied to. You seem to be saying that the fact that I didn’t go back in time and reply to his first, before I entered the thread, that I’m not allowed to reply to yours either.

You didn’t need to go back at all. It was right there in the post you were replying to. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20731606&postcount=102

You are free to make hypocritical statements but you are not immune from criticism for your hypocrisy.

Once again, how many pro-life Democratic politicians are there anyways? I mean Democrats are a big tent party, amirite?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@k9bfriender

No, I was responding to the point you were trying to make, that gay marriage was somehow being forced upon people. The Colorado baker was not forced to do anything gay, he was just asked to make a cake, as was he was in business to do.

He is not being asked. He is being forced.

Are you trying to say that having a gay married couple in public can get you killed if one of the couple accidentally discharges their gayness at you?

Are you saying that carried concealed carriers increase gun violence? I’d like to see a cite for that. Because imaginary threats from concealed carry permits are about as convincing as the imaginary threats from allowing gay marriage.

If not, then your rebuttal carries no weight.

You still have to establish that concealed carry increases violence.

In any case, I did say that I wanted to get away from guns in this, as that is a whole different issue, dealing with rights that are not as well defined in the constitution as many 2nd amendment people like to think. If the constitution actually said, “And the right for an individual to own and carry a handgun, rifle, or shotgun in a manner of his or her choosing, shall not be infringed”, then it would be straightforward, and the nation, the state, nor the cities could pass laws against it.

Other than the “in a manner of his or her choosing” part, that is basically what the constitution says. The constitution guarantees the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (which the Supreme Court has established includes handguns (and probably shotguns and rifles as well)).

As it’s a bit more nebulous, a bit of interpretation is necessary.

Not quite as nebulous as the rights that are not even mentioned in the constitution. But yes interpretation is always necessary.

In those words, no, and I don’t remember your posting history perfectly, but if you have ever accused a judge of being an activist judge for making a ruling that you did not like, then that is essentially what you are saying. The fact that it was a difference conservative commentator that actually articulated that complaint doesn’t make it invalid to any commentators who complain about the validity of court rulings.

There are court rulings I disagree with, like the aforementioned Heller, but I do not fault the system that brought about that decision, only wish to bring up arguments that may find such poor, IMHO, decisions revisited.

So, you were objecting to someone else accusing people of crying to the courts? Because I don’t think I’ve ever done what you are saying. The last Supreme Court decisions I disagreed with were Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, Lilly Ledbetter, and the voter ID case. I think you and me are on the same side on all of those.

I don’t think that gun rights should be a conservative or a liberal issue, and that has nothing to do with what I said.

And yet it has become a liberal conservative issue. The Democratic party platform still pushes for an assault weapons ban.

What I do think is that urban areas are different in many ways than rural areas, and as such, the rural areas should not force the cities to conform to gun laws that make sense in low populated areas, where help is far away and there are occasionally dangerous animals to deal with, but not in densely populated areas, where help is much closer at hand, and wildlife is unlikely to cuase you harm.

As long as the urban areas do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, I don’t see why they can’t have their own rules as long as the state and federal government permit them to do so. But every jurisdiction MUST allow its residents to own guns. Every jurisdiction MUST allow its citizens to carry guns.

To force cities to adopt standards that only make sense in rural areas is what I am talking about. If a city wants to have tighter gun laws because living in a city is a completely different experience than living in the country, why are they prevented from doing so by the people that don’t live in the city?

I get that that is the way it is. I disagree that that is the way it should be. What interest does the guy living in a little town in rural kentucky care if Louisville raises it’s MW? I get that a state may make a policy reason to ensure uniformity, I disagree that they should.

That’s another good point. States shouldn’t really have that power over cities either. And, as this is just a random example law you thought up, I would say that it is the state’s supremacy that I am objecting to, not the substance of this randomly chosen hypothetical law.

Lets say, for example, that they state wants to ban pornography in cities, but can’t really pass that law specifically. So they pass a law as you said, but say extend it to 1000 yards, with the knowledge that there is no where in the city that is more than 1000 yards from a school or church (or playground, childcare et al.). Yeah, that is the specific thing that I am talking about, people outside of the city dictating what happens inside the city.

If the state wants to pick up undocumented immigrants, and has the authority to do so, then the cities won’t stop them, though I would disagree with eh state’s decision there, they could do that.

Can a state prohibit a city from picking up undocumented immigrants? Could it force them to do so?

The state’s interest in preserving their policy trumps a city’s interest in doing what they want to do. The city is represented in state government in proportion to their population and they can make their argument to the state legislature.

If the state requires that cities expend their law enforcement resources on enforcing federal laws, that is a different matter altogether.

Antidiscrimination rights don’t come from the constitution, they come from federal law.

Not the one that involves the baker and the gay wedding cake.

If a city has sundown laws, it is not the state that would be overruling them.

Aware of that.

For the specific reasons that I have been arguing here. That is lets rural areas dictate what happens in urban areas.

And that is our system. We cannot let cities be independent of their states.

Not sure how you get a YMMV when you claim that there is little difference between the power of fed vs state, and the power of state vs city. It is a very obvious and objective difference.
[/QUOTE]

Well, the Fed can in fact tell states that they cannot have a higher minimum wage. The fed can in fact tell states that they cannot have special protections for minorities if it affects interstate commerce or effects reverse discrimination. Federal courts have in fact told states this very thing.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Little_Nemo

I read quite well, thank you. Enough so to see that several of the examples you gave of “problems” with the Democratic party just confirm what I have said; a lot of Republicans consider themselves better than other people and resent being treated as equals.

I don’t think you do. I think your reading is very selective.

[Ravenman]

@Damuri_Ajashi

If you believe that our policies should be focused on black and Hispanic rights rather than merit, join the Democratic party.

Funny, I see civil rights and merit as being completely compatible with each other.

It’s Republicans like Jesse Helms with his infamous “Hands” ad that makes people believe that we can’t be pro-merit and pro-civil rights at the same time. And we all know what kind of person Jesse Helms was.

[Ashtura]

Obviously the Democrats are big Tent. They won the popular vote after all. They have big BIG tents, in large cities. Unfortunately, big tent means nothing, at least when it comes to presidential elections. Big geography is king, and dems are too clustered. Obviously gerrymandering comes in play there, but I don’t see that being drastically changed anytime soon.