Freedom - ? (1 Viewer)

[KenHigg]

Shouldn't I be able to sell my goods to whom I please?

Link

 

[Frothingslosh]

That very same argument was used back in the 60's to justify racial discrimination. What you're really asking is "Why won't you allow me to discriminate?". And it would be a valid question, if not for the wide-spread, pervasive nature of the hatred and intolerance, relegating a specific group of people to the status of 'second class citizens'.

 

[KenHigg]

That very same argument was used back in the 60's to justify racial discrimination. What you're really asking is "Why won't you allow me to discriminate?". And it would be a valid question, if not for the wide-spread, pervasive nature of the hatred and intolerance, relegating a specific group of people to the status of 'second class citizens'.

Why is it, in this case, applied only to the groups mentioned? Why not make it illegal to discriminate angainst any person or group of peoples? And why only for the churches and stores? Why not for all human interactions?

 

[Frothingslosh]

If you pull up the discrimination laws (my internet connection at work is wonky - I can access here but not wikipedia or any us government site today, for some reason), there are actually around a dozen or 15 protected classes. Interestingly, they do NOT include sexual orientation or preference at this time. Each of these classes are groups that are blatantly discriminated against, and against whom the discrimination straight up would NOT stop without legal intervention.

There was no way on Earth that racial discrimination would die down in the South on its own; even today, it's still pervasive and widespread; it's just not as overt as it was. (Although you can still find it if you scratch the surface; I remember encountering a "No Niggers or Northerners" sign at a gas station I stopped at in Tennessee around ten years ago.)

It's the same thing here - these people hate gay people, don't know the first thing about them (as expressed by the belief against all fact that sexual orientation is a choice), and will continue to discriminate unless prevented. If it were a few people here or there, then there would be no need for legal protection. Unfortunately, look around at all the conflict and hatred and you can see that gay people are still very much second-class citizens who are not afforded the same rights as straight people. Hell, walk down the street holding a man's hand and watch the reactions people give you.

It would be one thing to discriminate against people for choices made - I have no problem with refusing service to a pedophile or murderer, and understand someone refusing service to a Democrat or Republican, a conservative or a liberal. It's another thing entirely to discriminate against someone for something over which they have literally zero choice.

Edit: Also, if sexual identity and orientation were a protected class, it WOULD be illegal to discriminate against LGBT people in almost any situation. Unfortunately, as I said, they're not on the national list and most states specifically exclude them from protected status.

 

[KenHigg]

Did they serve you at the service station? Were you free do go down the road where they wern't so narrow minded?

Who decides what groups needs laws to protect them?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Did they serve you at the service station? Were you free do go down the road where they wern't so narrow minded?

Who decides what groups needs laws to protect them?

So what you're espousing is 'Separate But Equal'. And here I thought we'd recognized the fallacy of that argument 50+ years ago.

What part of 'pervasive atmosphere of discrimination' do you not understand?

Good to know you're one of those "How dare I not be allowed to discriminate" types. I'll make sure to get you a new white hood for Christmas.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You are making the exact same arguments every other bigot makes to try to justify their discrimination of choice. I have no desire to have this same conversation for the several hundredth time.

 

[KenHigg]

Why do you feel the need to call me a bigot when all I was trying to understand is who decides when something becomes 'pervasive' enoug to write a new law? If you didn't want to have the conversation again why did you post to the thread in the first place?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Fair enough.

I had this discussion at least a dozen times last weekend on various sites. I've had this discussion hundreds of times in the last ten years. It ALWAYS goes the same way:

Why can't businesses sell to who they want?
Why can't (disliked group) go some place they are accepted?
Why does the government have the right to tell me I can't do something?
What about the First Amendment?
The government can't legislate morality!
Why am I persecuted for not thinking like everyone else?

And on, and on, and on.

I thought I could do it again, but I just got so SICK of it I lashed out. For that, I apologize.

That said, your argument is 100% an attempt to justify bigotry, hatred, and intolerance, and while the white hood comment may have gone a little too far, it still addresses a vaild point: this argument is virtually ALWAYS put forth by someone trying to justify their own bigotry, hatred, and dislike of a persecuted minority but who doesn't want to suffer the stigma of waving their actual beliefs around in public. You are making the EXACT same points people used in the 50's and 60's to defend racial discrimination.

That said, I had best bow out, because I apparently am beyond burned out on this particular type of discussion.

 

[KenHigg]

Ok, thanks for the input, I suppose. Not sure what 'virtually ALWAYS' means means but you sure made the point that you think no one is to bring the topic up again. Seems you consider Tennesee and the south a lesser group, where's the law against that? Oh, wait, I forgot you bowed out...

 

[Libre]

Shouldn't I be able to sell my goods to whom I please?

Yeah, like taxpayer funded, essential public services like utilities, medical services, education, fire and police depts - why shouldn't you be able to take the money and then refuse to serve whoever you don't like? I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[KenHigg]

Pitiful stretch Libre...

 

[Libre]

What do you mean a "stretch"?
You don't think it would be a real problem?
Because that's what the laws are designed to deal with.
Take away that law and you would have certain races and groups neglected. Hell, it goes on in places like Ferguson (and everywhere else) even WITH the law.
So if you think it's a stretch, just what are you getting at?
What "freedom" don't you currently have, that you think you ought to have?

 

[KenHigg]

If I own a car and two people want to buy it I don't want the goverment telling me who I have to sell it to. Pretty simple. Next they'll be wanting to tell me who to buy FROM - !

 

[Rx_]

When I was much younger, you could sell your own blood. It was a great way to make some dollars (probably about $50 USD in today's money) and help people. There was never a blood shortage at the blood banks.
Then, it became wrong to sell blood.
So now, it can only be donated. Naturally, there is a constant shortage and the price for those who need it went up too.

No you don't have a right to sell your own things (blood cells) to who you want.
If you can't sell your own blood, why be surprised about anything else?

 

[KenHigg]

When I was much younger, you could sell your own blood. It was a great way to make some dollars (probably about $50 USD in today's money) and help people. There was never a blood shortage at the blood banks.
Then, it became wrong to sell blood.
So now, it can only be donated. Naturally, there is a constant shortage and the price for those who need it went up too.

No you don't have a right to sell your own things (blood cells) to who you want.
If you can't sell your own blood, why be surprised about anything else?

We do get ice cream if we donate at work

 

[Steve R.]

There is a reverse viewpoint. The progressive left claims certain laws, such as the Indiana "religious freedom" law, would allow discrimination to take place against certain minorities. Yet, the progressive left has no problem discriminating (boycotting, legal action, media denigration) against companies or individuals that they deem to be conducting some-sort of "offensive" behavior. Furthermore, the progressive left still maintains that allowing discrimination (in the name of ending discrimination) is perfectly legal. In conclusion, the progressive left seems to believe that they are entitled to special privileges (a double standard) that are protected by legal system.

 

[Libre]

If I own a car and two people want to buy it I don't want the goverment telling me who I have to sell it to. Pretty simple. Next they'll be wanting to tell me who to buy FROM - !

Yeah, that's been a real problem for me too. Every time I try to sell a car, the government steps right in and tells me who I can sell it to. I hate when that happens. Something should be done about that.
Oh, and as far as donating blood: it does open a kind of Pandora's Box when you allow a free market to exist on body fluids and organs. Keeping it to donating, keeps that box almost (but not quite) closed. I don't know what the answer is here. But clearly you can't have kidneys on ebay. I expect KenHigg to now say: WHY CAN'T I SELL MY KIDNEY (or my friend's or my little brother's or the gardener's) ON EBAY IF I WANT TO. IT"S SUPPOSED TO BE A FREE COUNTRY!! WHERE IS MY FREEDOM???

 

[Libre]

There is a reverse viewpoint. The progressive left claims certain laws, such as the Indiana "religious freedom" law, would allow discrimination to take place against certain minorities. Yet, the progressive left has no problem discriminating (boycotting, legal action, media denigration) against companies or individuals that they deem to be conducting some-sort of "offensive" behavior. Furthermore, the progressive left still maintains that allowing discrimination (in the name of ending discrimination) is perfectly legal. In conclusion, the progressive left seems to believe that they are entitled to special privileges (a double standard) that are protected by legal system.

So, if I understand what you're saying, Steve, the progressive left, in their quest to end inequality, winds up actually promoting discrimination against those that oppose inequality;
whereas the reactionary right just discriminates directly, with no funny stuff in between and no pretense of trying to end inequality.
Yeah, I guess I see what you mean.

 

[KenHigg]

Yeah, that's been a real problem for me too. Every time I try to sell a car, the government steps right in and tells me who I can sell it to. I hate when that happens. Something should be done about that.
Oh, and as far as donating blood: it does open a kind of Pandora's Box when you allow a free market to exist on body fluids and organs. Keeping it to donating, keeps that box almost (but not quite) closed. I don't know what the answer is here. But clearly you can't have kidneys on ebay. I expect KenHigg to now say: WHY CAN'T I SELL MY KIDNEY (or my friend's or my little brother's or the gardener's) ON EBAY IF I WANT TO. IT"S SUPPOSED TO BE A FREE COUNTRY!! WHERE IS MY FREEDOM???

Sorry if you missed the point with the car analogy. And why do you make statements like the kidney thing? For a person who seems to want to be considerate of others you can be really condescending...?