Why doesn't the anti-discrimination knife cut both ways?

Nightmare said:

Either we are equal or not, either we are free or not, and compromise is failure on the installment plan. One does not negotiate with the evil devil minions.

Click to expand...

I want equal talent as Michael Jordan and Jimi Hendrix and Kelly Slater. Its not fair they have so much more talent than I!

J/K I know you are not referring to egalitarianism.

carolina guy said:

Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of some members of the group is also a common tactic.

Click to expand...

+1 Yes indeed.

This religious nut did this so their religion is horrible!

What about the people of your religion who did this horrible act?

They were not true believers.

OC for ME said:

Please excuse the segmenting, I do this in my attempt to fully and correctly understand your question/point.A black citizen must be compelled to shop at a white owned business?

A citizen must be compelled to spend his "property" only at government approved businesses?

When the government ventures into compelling a citizen (the consumer) to engage in what should be strictly a exchange between individual citizens, for the purposes of implementing equality, liberty is eroded.

If I miss your question/point, please accept my apologies.

Click to expand...

When put that way you can see how communistic, these must serve rules are.

utbagpiper said:

snip.....

Frankly, I think that when it comes to services, they should be.

Or, put another way, at least not applied to non-essential services that could reasonably be construed as promoting a cause or message to which the owner objects. I'm reminded of Jefferson's quote about the unjustness of forcing a man to support the promulgation of a message to which he objects.

As an example if I had my way:

A baker or restaurant could not refuse to provide service to man simply because he was Mormon, Democrat, black, homosexual, or carries a gun. If an individual wants a birthday cake or a sandwich at the lunch counter, the owner should be obliged to provide service without regard to any of those characteristics.

However, if a prospective customer wants 1000 cupcakes to support his Mormon church proselyting activity, or his campaign for legislature, or a wedding cake, or he wants to host an OC event to promote the carrying of firearms, or he wants catering for his Black Liberation Theology congregation, the owner should be free to decline services on the grounds that all of these events are intended to send a message and promote a social agenda.

Businesses should provide general services without regard to the various individual characteristics of the customers. But business owners should not required to provide services to promote a message or social/political/religious agenda to which they object.

In theory perhaps. But in practice?
snip....

Click to expand...

Your thinking & reasoning of providing services to an individual but not providing services to a group which is against that person's beliefs is something that is being scrutinized. Look at Arlene's Flowers in Richland, WA or that bakery in Oregon. Both refused to provide services for a LGBT Unionship Ceremony as that choice in life/genetics was against the owners' beliefs, yet both got hit with lawsuits for not following the social agenda of LGBT Unionships becoming the norm. In both cases, the businesses involved were/are small businesses, where there were/are other businesses available that provide the same services as those being requested.

The overall consensus in Main Stream Media (MSM) is that guns are bad & no one but law enforcement should be allowed to have them, so the social agenda is that no one but trained law enforcement should have guns. It is for this reason why so many businesses are gun-free zones, the MSM have basically brainwashed business owners into believing that all responsible gun owners/LACs are bad guys. When lawfully carrying (OC or CC), the mere presence of a holstered sidearm does not constitute warranting alarm, yet if the business owner/manager decides to be hoplophobic, the LAC has no choice but to leave or face potential legal issues though they have done nothing wrong.

It is simple, the socialists have said that they do not want to play fair.

That is the answer to the original question.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

The really simple answer is you are not free, never have been and this is how the rulers have decided the game will be played when you live on their plantation.

Freedom1Man said:

It is simple, the socialists have said that they do not want to play fair.

That is the answer to the original question.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

+1

mnrobitaille said:

Your thinking & reasoning of providing services to an individual but not providing services to a group which is against that person's beliefs is something that is being scrutinized. Look at Arlene's Flowers in Richland, WA or that bakery in Oregon. Both refused to provide services for a LGBT Unionship Ceremony as that choice in life/genetics was against the owners' beliefs, yet both got hit with lawsuits for not following the social agenda of LGBT Unionships becoming the norm. In both cases, the businesses involved were/are small businesses, where there were/are other businesses available that provide the same services as those being requested.

Click to expand...

You are correct; this is an area of active political and judicial consideration.

I think it important to note that in most cases involving small business owners declining to provide services to same-sex "marriage" or receptions, the owner had previously provided general services to the individuals without regard to their sexual orientation. The small business owner had not discriminated against someone for being homosexual. In fact, in most cases, had a very good and on-going relationship with the couple. That is one reason the couple took their "wedding" or reception business to that owner. The small business owner declined only to promote a message or social agenda he found personally offensive.

It seems to me that anti-discrimination laws are not going away any time soon. I suppose it is possible that forcing small business owners to provide creative services to homosexual weddings might result in some "blow-back" against all anti-discrimination. But I doubt it, especially so long as it is primarily Christians who are being affected.

So from a pragmatic political point of view, I think there are three things that might work to limit the degree to which such laws impose on individual freedom.

1-Maintain the distinction between truly small, personally run businesses, and businesses large enough that an individual owner is not personally involved in every decision.

This distinction protects the most vulnerable of small business owners.

2-Draw the distinction I have between general services and those specific times when providing services is to actively promote an agenda, social view, religious doctrine, etc, that the owner finds offensive.

3-To require that anti-discrimination (and related) laws go both directions.

In overly simplistic terms, most anti-discrimination (and hate crime) laws have come from the left and are seen as a burden by the right. Were anti-discrimination to also cover possession of a self-defense firearm, and to protect religious expressions and clothing (it does this now in some cases at least), and to prevent race-based affirmative action, those who most strongly support anti-discrimination laws would have cause to pause. They would have reason to look more honestly at limiting which businesses are subject to such laws. Similarly if hate crime laws included lack of union membership as a protected category. When threatening or assaulting a "scab" draws a hate crime enhancement, many who have traditionally supported hate crimes may have cause to re-consider.

Sometimes the easies way to expose the injustice of law is to apply it fully equally. When congressmen's kids are subjected to the draft... When rich white kids get the same treatment for recreational drug use as poor black kids...

Sometimes to fully apply a law equally requires expanding it a bit. Liberals are more than happy to force a business owner to cater a same-sex "wedding". How do they like being forced to provide services to a visibly armed man, or to cater a Friends of the NRA dinner?

mnrobitaille said:

The overall consensus in Main Stream Media (MSM) is that guns are bad & no one but law enforcement should be allowed to have them, so the social agenda is that no one but trained law enforcement should have guns. It is for this reason why so many businesses are gun-free zones, the MSM have basically brainwashed business owners into believing that all responsible gun owners/LACs are bad guys. When lawfully carrying (OC or CC), the mere presence of a holstered sidearm does not constitute warranting alarm, yet if the business owner/manager decides to be hoplophobic, the LAC has no choice but to leave or face potential legal issues though they have done nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

Agreed fully. Not to mention the potential for a very small number of large businessmen to perpetuated unwanted discrimination on an entire nation.

How many different insurance under-writers are there in the whole nation? If two or three of the big ones require "no guns" as conditions of under-writing, that propagates to all the insurance companies that use those under-writers. That then propagates to every business, home owner, auto-owner, etc who uses those companies. It isn't like any of us can risk the modern world without insurance, or that insurance companies can go without under-writing, or that someone can just go start up a new under-writing company easily: very capital intensive.

Similarly, one or two influential law firms in a place like NYC can propagate a no-gun employment policy to most every business with an HR department. I'd guess only a couple of firms are responsible for writing most of the boilerplate "safe harbor" employment policies that propagate nationwide through HR organizations/associations.

Charles