Businesses banning AZ legislators for their anti-homosexual stance

[kallend 1,623]

davjohns

Just to affirm my 'libertarianness'
Last night, I saw a bit on the net about a gay hairstylist who refused to cut the hair of a politician who supported some kind of gay suppression legislation (not sure what it was). My instant response was, "Good for him".

I support the businesses who don't want to serve people they have an issue with...no matter which side of the political spectrum.

I support your freedom of speech...even when you are speaking against my right to keep and bear arms, have an issue with someone's freedom of religion, etc.

I support anyone doing what they want so long as they aren't hurting or will not likely hurt someone else by doing it.

It was once phrased, "Live and let live". It was considered liberal in the 60s. Today, it's considered conservative? The spectrum seems to have shifted.

I take it, then, that you support businesses and other organizations that post "No guns" signs?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

I support the businesses who don't want to serve people they have an issue with...no matter which side of the political spectrum.

*** support anyone doing what they want so long as they aren't hurting or will not likely hurt someone else by doing it.

These two statements contradict eachother somewhat. Unless you purely mean based on the political spectrum. Conservatives or liberals not welcome here kind of thing.

When you tell somebody they are too gay to get a cup of coffee in their cafe. Or, I will only serve you if you sit at this indentified counter, means you are hurting someone.

Not exactly. I come at it from the persepctive that the business owner is not obligated to do something. To say they are obligated makes them a form of slave. Refusing to do something for someone else does not harm them as you suggest. They can go somewhere else to get a cup of coffee. Since it deprives the business owner of revenue, it would be more accurate to say that the business owner hurt himself/herself. I support their right to shoot themselves in the foot.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not exactly. I come at it from the persepctive that the business owner is not obligated to do something. To say they are obligated makes them a form of slave. Refusing to do something for someone else does not harm them as you suggest. They can go somewhere else to get a cup of coffee. Since it deprives the business owner of revenue, it would be more accurate to say that the business owner hurt himself/herself. I support their right to shoot themselves in the foot.

I understand what you're saying from a theoretical viewpoint, but in practical terms it sounds like you would support de facto segregation, if not de jure. At some point, even if it is not a government mandate, the economic pressure to discriminate can be more powerful that the pressure not to. In other words, if you're the only lunch counter in town willing to serve blacks, you're probably going to lose all your white business.

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,122]

davjohns

***

Quote

I support the businesses who don't want to serve people they have an issue with...no matter which side of the political spectrum.

*** support anyone doing what they want so long as they aren't hurting or will not likely hurt someone else by doing it.

These two statements contradict eachother somewhat. Unless you purely mean based on the political spectrum. Conservatives or liberals not welcome here kind of thing.

When you tell somebody they are too gay to get a cup of coffee in their cafe. Or, I will only serve you if you sit at this indentified counter, means you are hurting someone.

Not exactly. I come at it from the persepctive that the business owner is not obligated to do something. To say they are obligated makes them a form of slave. Refusing to do something for someone else does not harm them as you suggest. They can go somewhere else to get a cup of coffee. Since it deprives the business owner of revenue, it would be more accurate to say that the business owner hurt himself/herself. I support their right to shoot themselves in the foot.

That only works if all groups have similar buying power, and there is no large size differential between the groups.

I agree with the theory of the thought, the problem is that in practice it rarely works that way. If it did, the free market would have put an end to segregation.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

DanG

Quote

Not exactly. I come at it from the persepctive that the business owner is not obligated to do something. To say they are obligated makes them a form of slave. Refusing to do something for someone else does not harm them as you suggest. They can go somewhere else to get a cup of coffee. Since it deprives the business owner of revenue, it would be more accurate to say that the business owner hurt himself/herself. I support their right to shoot themselves in the foot.

I understand what you're saying from a theoretical viewpoint, but in practical terms it sounds like you would support de facto segregation, if not de jure. At some point, even if it is not a government mandate, the economic pressure to discriminate can be more powerful that the pressure not to. In other words, if you're the only lunch counter in town willing to serve blacks, you're probably going to lose all your white business.

^This.

Once you have a business that is "Open To The Public" you assume certain obligations. Fire exits, safety rules, sanitation rules, more that don't immediately come to mind.

It also means you can't discriminate. You can refuse service to particular customers, usually based on behavior (some restaurants have dress codes, for example).
But you can't say "No Blacks" or "No Women" or "No Muslims."

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[davjohns 1]

I really think segreation would have died a natural death. It just would have taken too long.

I think the prejudice against homosexuals has much less wide-spread support and only needs a generation to pass away to be nearly gone in American society. At least, I hope that is the case.

Throwing in the 'only lunch counter in town' premise slants the debate unwarrantedly. I've often thought the energy put into protesting a business would be better spent opening a competing business.

Claiming sexual orientation is a legally protected category does the same. It isn't. Worse, you are placing sexual orientation in a superior position (as rights go) to the exercise of religious beliefs. I don't think racial segregation had any basis in religion and it is federally protected. I am merely saying the right of the homosexual (and others who support him/her) are not superior to the freedom of religion of the business owner. But the business owner has to live with the consequences of lost revenue.

Keep in mind...I don't want government involved in personal relationships. I don't support DOMA. On the contrary, I want the government out of marriage and the bedroom entirely. I would never support government suppression of homosexuals. Why would I support suppression of a business owner's religious beliefs?

Out of curiousity...if you are offended by businesses not wanting to serve homosexuals due to religious beliefs, why are you not criticizing the homosexual who would not serve a politician because of the politician's beliefs?

You see, I don't just support the rights of people I agree with. I would happily pay the gay guy to cut my hair and refuse to patronize the business who will not serve him. I'll vote with my pocketbook. I would never use government as an instrument to enforce my views on those who are not actively hurting anyone.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

davjohns

Claiming sexual orientation is a legally protected category does the same. It isn't. Worse, you are placing sexual orientation in a superior position (as rights go) to the exercise of religious beliefs. I don't think racial segregation had any basis in religion and it is federally protected. I am merely saying the right of the homosexual (and others who support him/her) are not superior to the freedom of religion of the business owner. But the business owner has to live with the consequences of lost revenue.

Sexual orientation is a protected category in some states and localities, although not federally.

There is a long history of racial segregation being rooted in religion. Look up John Henley Thornwell and/or the historical exegesis of Ham, Shem, and Japeth for some compelling examples.

I have libertarian leanings and I wish it was not necessary but this appears to be a proper role for government to me.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

I'm not putting sexual orientation superior to religious beliefs.

If someone's religious beliefs forbid them from doing business with homosexuals, then they shouldn't have a business open to the public in the first place.
The cake bakers in Oregon (?) weren't being asked to approve homosexuality, they weren't being asked to attend the wedding. They were being asked to bake a cake. Which is what they did as a business. They chose to decide that the purchasers of the cake, or it's intended use offended them. When it was really none of their business. If someone wanted to come in and order a large cake and it ended up being used as a base for jello wrestling, would that have affected them?

While anti-gay prejudice is declining, and hopefully will be mostly gone soon, if you don't think it's wide spread, you really haven't looked. It's big.

If you don't believe racial segregation had any basis in religion, then you really need to study your history. Much of the arguments against inter-racial marriage were based on religion and backed by (mis)interpretation of the bible. Much like the anti-gay stances today (amazing parallels if you look closely).

I think the gay refusing to serve the politician is amusing. I'm neither criticizing or supporting it. It's clearly retaliation for the politician's stance.

Did the restaurant refuse to serve all politicians? That would be discrimination. As it would be if the restaurant refused to serve any and all lawyers.

Refusing to serve politicians who voted for this bill isn't really discrimination (IMO). It's basing refusal to serve on behavior. Somewhat similar to refusing service to bikers wearing club colors. (bad analogy, but the best I can think of right now).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 0]

I guess I'll have to put it bluntly to you, Dave: you're on the wrong side of history on this. I fully understand your argument; but as a nation, that conversation has already long since been had, the side that prevailed... prevailed, and the argument you assert was found wanting, at least legally. While I can well appreciate the long-term effects of well-permeated cultural attitudes and social indoctrination (of which we are each the respective products), and that changes in same often lag well behind changes in the laws, it is what it is, which is: done. It's time to let it go.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Throwing in the 'only lunch counter in town' premise slants the debate unwarrantedly. I've often thought the energy put into protesting a business would be better spent opening a competing business.

Not always easy to just start a competing business. What if a pharmaceutical company decides they don't want to supply drugs to gays, or christians, or muslims, or black people etc.?

What if the NYSE decides that black people are not allowed to trade on their platform?

[davjohns 1]

Andy - point taken. I know I am jousting with windmills. Government will never stop telling people how to live their most personal lives. People just can't stop trying to control others.

SkyDekker - I have a whole host of issues with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. Pick another analogy. As far as I'm concerned, those drugs should be available for the asking in most cases. Eliminates the problem you present, but I know that wasn't your point. NYSE has similar problems as an analogy...and both analogies are highly regulated already. I don't think we want the same level of regulation on lunch counters.

Sorry...forgot the whole religion thing.

Yes, there were religious groups who claimed blacks didn't have souls, slavery wasn't forbidden in the bible, etc. But a plain reading of religious texts has never presented a case for racial segregation to my knowledge. If you are already slanted that way, you can make a complex argument. That doesn't make it fundamental to the religion. Homosexuality, however, is clearly forbidden in plain language in the Judeo / Christian texts. While I think those were the prejudices of one man and not 'God's law', it is clearly a different issue from racial segregation and the religious legitimacy that was assigned to it in the past. Of course, I read the Christian Bible from a completely different perspective than most, so many religious people might disagree with me. They rarely agree with my views on Christianity anyhow.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

SkyDekker - I have a whole host of issues with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. Pick another analogy. As far as I'm concerned, those drugs should be available for the asking in most cases. Eliminates the problem you present, but I know that wasn't your point. NYSE has similar problems as an analogy...and both analogies are highly regulated already. I don't think we want the same level of regulation on lunch counters.

So should there then be a list of which business can discriminate and whch ones cannot? Or is it at a certain level of profit? How do you want to make the distinction?

[davjohns 1]

Very fair question. I recognize the point of your earlier question and have been mulling it over. I would not approve of utilities refusing someone service for reasons of personal views. But then, those are also highly regulated as a privilege of doing business. Your examples of the NYSE and pharmaceutical companies are also highly regulated. So, I'm having trouble doing your question justice without running into an industry that is highly regulated already.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

davjohns

Yes, there were religious groups who claimed blacks didn't have souls, slavery wasn't forbidden in the bible, etc. But a plain reading of religious texts has never presented a case for racial segregation to my knowledge. If you are already slanted that way, you can make a complex argument. That doesn't make it fundamental to the religion. Homosexuality, however, is clearly forbidden in plain language in the Judeo / Christian texts. While I think those were the prejudices of one man and not 'God's law', it is clearly a different issue from racial segregation and the religious legitimacy that was assigned to it in the past. Of course, I read the Christian Bible from a completely different perspective than most, so many religious people might disagree with me. They rarely agree with my views on Christianity anyhow.

The big problem I have with that view (homosexuality is clearly prohibited conduct) is that there's lots of stuff that is clearly and plainly a sin.

Divorce for example.
Do any of these businesses that want to refuse service to gays on "religious grounds" also want to refuse service to divorced people?
Not that I've heard of.

They want to pick and choose which sins they don't like and refuse to do business with only some of them.

That's not refusing service on "religious grounds" that's just plain bigotry.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bolas 5]

SkyDekker

Quote

SkyDekker - I have a whole host of issues with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. Pick another analogy. As far as I'm concerned, those drugs should be available for the asking in most cases. Eliminates the problem you present, but I know that wasn't your point. NYSE has similar problems as an analogy...and both analogies are highly regulated already. I don't think we want the same level of regulation on lunch counters.

So should there then be a list of which business can discriminate and whch ones cannot? Or is it at a certain level of profit? How do you want to make the distinction?

Yes. Any business that does business with any level of government can't discriminate in any way. Discrimination also discludes the business from any aid or tax breaks.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Amazon 7]

SkyDekker

Quote

Throwing in the 'only lunch counter in town' premise slants the debate unwarrantedly. I've often thought the energy put into protesting a business would be better spent opening a competing business.

Not always easy to just start a competing business. What if a pharmaceutical company decides they don't want to supply drugs to gays, or christians, or muslims, or black people etc.?

What if the NYSE decides that black people are not allowed to trade on their platform?

They already do, based on who can afford their offerings and who cannot. I would posit that many minorities fit into economic circumstances that preclude them from many benefits of modern pharma because their insurance either does not cover those drugs even if they have a prescription benefit.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Bolas

***

Quote

SkyDekker - I have a whole host of issues with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. Pick another analogy. As far as I'm concerned, those drugs should be available for the asking in most cases. Eliminates the problem you present, but I know that wasn't your point. NYSE has similar problems as an analogy...and both analogies are highly regulated already. I don't think we want the same level of regulation on lunch counters.

So should there then be a list of which business can discriminate and whch ones cannot? Or is it at a certain level of profit? How do you want to make the distinction?

Yes. Any business that does business with any level of government can't discriminate in any way. Discrimination also discludes the business from any aid or tax breaks.

But any other company can discriminate at will?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Andy - point taken. I know I am jousting with windmills. Government will never stop telling people how to live their most personal lives. People just can't stop trying to control others.

And therein lies the point. The government isn't telling people how to live their most personal lives. It is telling them how they have to live that small part of their lives that interfaces with the public sphere, and only if they want to run a public business. Frankly, if they want to start a Members Only Cake Lovers Club, then they can exclude gays, blacks, women, or whatever. But they can't do that with a business that is open to the public. If it is open to the public, it has to be open to the whole public.

It's really less of an intrusion on rights that it is being made out to be.

- Dan G

[Southern_Man 0]

davjohns

Sorry...forgot the whole religion thing.

Yes, there were religious groups who claimed blacks didn't have souls, slavery wasn't forbidden in the bible, etc. But a plain reading of religious texts has never presented a case for racial segregation to my knowledge. If you are already slanted that way, you can make a complex argument. That doesn't make it fundamental to the religion. Homosexuality, however, is clearly forbidden in plain language in the Judeo / Christian texts. While I think those were the prejudices of one man and not 'God's law', it is clearly a different issue from racial segregation and the religious legitimacy that was assigned to it in the past. Of course, I read the Christian Bible from a completely different perspective than most, so many religious people might disagree with me. They rarely agree with my views on Christianity anyhow.

The people making the arguments on slavery certainly believed they were making straightforward plain readings and did believe their beliefs about slavery were fundamental to the religion in just about exactly the same way that people reflect on homosexuality today. Here is one such quote from the above mentioned Thornwell, who is one of the most important antebellum theologians:

The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders—they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins, on one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground—Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

DanG

Quote

Andy - point taken. I know I am jousting with windmills. Government will never stop telling people how to live their most personal lives. People just can't stop trying to control others.

And therein lies the point. The government isn't telling people how to live their most personal lives. It is telling them how they have to live that small part of their lives that interfaces with the public sphere, and only if they want to run a public business. Frankly, if they want to start a Members Only Cake Lovers Club, then they can exclude gays, blacks, women, or whatever. But they can't do that with a business that is open to the public. If it is open to the public, it has to be open to the whole public.

It's really less of an intrusion on rights that it is being made out to be.

And therein lies my point, not a spin-up of it.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Dan,

Perfect!!!

That is it in a nutshell. If anyone cannot understand this, they are not paying attention.

Thank You.

JerryBaumchen

[Bolas 5]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

SkyDekker - I have a whole host of issues with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. Pick another analogy. As far as I'm concerned, those drugs should be available for the asking in most cases. Eliminates the problem you present, but I know that wasn't your point. NYSE has similar problems as an analogy...and both analogies are highly regulated already. I don't think we want the same level of regulation on lunch counters.

So should there then be a list of which business can discriminate and whch ones cannot? Or is it at a certain level of profit? How do you want to make the distinction?

Yes. Any business that does business with any level of government can't discriminate in any way. Discrimination also discludes the business from any aid or tax breaks.

But any other company can discriminate at will?

Don't think you realize the limitations this subjects said discriminatory business to. Very few, if any, would bother. We're not talking about large corporations here

The difference is instead of an outright ban, it is curtailed through economic policy.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Don't think you realize the limitations this subjects said discriminatory business to.

Then why didn't businesses put an end to segregation themselves? History doesn't appear to be on your side.

[Bolas 5]

SkyDekker

Quote

Don't think you realize the limitations this subjects said discriminatory business to.

Then why didn't businesses put an end to segregation themselves? History doesn't appear to be on your side.

Don't believe an intermediate step such as this was even tried. Businesses are also far more dependent on government contracts, tax breaks, and other incentives now.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wmw999 2,122]

When a 10-15% minority is the only part that's hurt by discrimination, they're unable to, alone, effect a market change. Their market can (and is) simply ignored.

Does that make it OK?

Does the government have any responsibility to protect its citizens, or only those in some majority or another? Even hate crimes have their basis in the inability of the state to overcome local prejudice (i.e. get a conviction when everyone hates the victim anyway). Declaring something a hate crime is probably the wrong way to go, but double indemnity means that once acquitted, the guy is free to do whatever again.

And the 1940's-1960's and civil rights are ample evidence that local communities won't necessarily convict when someone is clearly guilty, or acquit when they're clearly innocent, just because of skin color and social position.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)