Total Posts:270|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religious Freedom and Gay Rights

YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 2:17:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.cnn.com...

The State of Indiana has become the 20th state in the nation to legalize homophobic discrimination under the auspices that failure to do so amounts to the imposition of a "substantial burden" on religious freedom. What constitutes a "substantial burden" remains an open question. Very powerful CEO's and other public figures have sharply contemned the law, as have legal analysts who describe the law as "one of the most sweeping" yet passed.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 2:38:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 2:17:57 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

The State of Indiana has become the 20th state in the nation to legalize homophobic discrimination under the auspices that failure to do so amounts to the imposition of a "substantial burden" on religious freedom. What constitutes a "substantial burden" remains an open question. Very powerful CEO's and other public figures have sharply contemned the law, as have legal analysts who describe the law as "one of the most sweeping" yet passed.

In an unbiased and objective manner, could you please tell me what exactly this law entails?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:27:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 2:38:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/28/2015 2:17:57 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

The State of Indiana has become the 20th state in the nation to legalize homophobic discrimination under the auspices that failure to do so amounts to the imposition of a "substantial burden" on religious freedom. What constitutes a "substantial burden" remains an open question. Very powerful CEO's and other public figures have sharply contemned the law, as have legal analysts who describe the law as "one of the most sweeping" yet passed.

In an unbiased and objective manner, could you please tell me what exactly this law entails?

As a legislative analyst to another state(not going to say which one), we have a similar law suggested every few years, never passed. These laws are generally pretty similar universally, so maybe I could answer your question.

Republican lawmakers enjoy the 'substantial burden' argument so much because it allows them to kill bills or weasel their way out of legislation without making them look too bad.

YYW stated this bill 'legalized discrimination,' which is a biased summary, obviously. Republicans would argue that forcing religiously affiliated organizations to hire LGBT individuals places too much pressure on their first amendment rights, and that this bill alleviates some of those concerns by basically saying, 'you can hire them if you want to, you don't have to." Democratic lawmakers would come to the same conclusion YYW did, that this bill propagates discrimination.

This type of legislation gets fairly complicated. For one, there is a debatable case to be made as to whether first amendment rights extend to organizations, or just individuals. Further, there is no clear legal precedent for what constitutes a 'substantial burden,' or to what determines an infringement of the first amendment in this scenario.

However, this bill doesn't technically legalize discrimination, it just doesn't force anyone to hire LGBT individuals if they don't want to. I do not know how often these sorts of laws are used in the private sector to turn away LGBT individuals. Even if you were fired from a job based on your sexual orientation, you could still file suit against the organization and would have a fairly good case. My assumption is that a law firm may take your case pro bono simply because a lawsuit of this nature would go to the Supreme Court. However, in my experience, Courts rarely vote against the legislature. This gets in to a whole other issue...

Essentially, the law provides an 'out' for businesses, without providing any recourse for the LGBT individual who just wants a job. The law is a win-win for Republicans, because they are protecting business and voting against equality for LGBT groups - two popular positions their voters take.

Hope that helped.

*I'm not aware of the Indiana law, but generally these laws apply to business of 15 or fewer persons, or something like that. Maybe YYW would be able to tell us exactly whom this law would affect. Rarely does the legislature apply these laws to large businesses (100+ employees) because they pay insurance premiums to get out of hiring LGBT individuals anyway if they don't want to.
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:45:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 2:17:57 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

The State of Indiana has become the 20th state in the nation to legalize homophobic discrimination under the auspices that failure to do so amounts to the imposition of a "substantial burden" on religious freedom. What constitutes a "substantial burden" remains an open question. Very powerful CEO's and other public figures have sharply contemned the law, as have legal analysts who describe the law as "one of the most sweeping" yet passed.

I've never understood how anti-discriminatory laws even work.
How is it possible to stop private enterprises from selectively hiring or providing services to particular groups of people?
anything your heart desires
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:50:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:45:21 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 3/28/2015 2:17:57 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

The State of Indiana has become the 20th state in the nation to legalize homophobic discrimination under the auspices that failure to do so amounts to the imposition of a "substantial burden" on religious freedom. What constitutes a "substantial burden" remains an open question. Very powerful CEO's and other public figures have sharply contemned the law, as have legal analysts who describe the law as "one of the most sweeping" yet passed.

I've never understood how anti-discriminatory laws even work.
How is it possible to stop private enterprises from selectively hiring or providing services to particular groups of people?

They are extremely difficult to enforce, simply because you have to prove beyond a doubt that an individual was fired for a particular reason that pertains to a discriminatory stance.

Most anti-discrimination legislation enforces some sort of legal recourse procedure for the individual that was discriminated against. This particular piece of legislation from Indiana diminishes the effectiveness of that recourse or those appellate rights.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 7:48:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?

Been there and did that. It would be difficult to prove that African Americans could even be seated next to me in a restaurant today if the gov did not force it. Libertarianism does not always mean collectively as a society that the exercise of freedom will result in the right behavior as an aggrigate.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 7:58:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 7:48:10 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?

Been there and did that. It would be difficult to prove that African Americans could even be seated next to me in a restaurant today if the gov did not force it. Libertarianism does not always mean collectively as a society that the exercise of freedom will result in the right behavior as an aggrigate.

True, but it isn't supposed to. The goal isn't to compel people to act in an ethical manner. The goal is to get the government to act in an ethical manner. However I don't think the government regulated that type of racism out of existence. I believe the trend was already in that direction.

Let me ask you this though. Would it not be better for businesses to be able to wear their racism on their sleeves and not have to hide it, and be so subtle with it. If they weren't forced to be subtle, you could easily choose to not support racist businesses with your money, but in today's day and age, you have no ideal whether your money is going towards such things, because of how subtle businesses are forced to be with it.

Look, I am not saying freedom is the best way to meet every end, but it is the best way to have an OVERALL BETTER system. I think it is too often that we look at this policy or that policy in an individual matter, but in my opinion it is best to implement the best overall system.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 8:02:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.

Why do you think he would use a florist that doesn't serve gay people. I think it is one thing to support a policy, because it is the correct thing to do, but supporting a business that does that is not the correct thing to do.

Should it be illegal for businesses to treat customers rudely? The answer is no. That policy would be unethical, but you should still use common sense to not patronize that business. You can think freedom is a good thing, while simultaneously not supporting those who would abuse it.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 12:08:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 8:02:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.

Why do you think he would use a florist that doesn't serve gay people. I think it is one thing to support a policy, because it is the correct thing to do, but supporting a business that does that is not the correct thing to do.

Should it be illegal for businesses to treat customers rudely? The answer is no. That policy would be unethical, but you should still use common sense to not patronize that business. You can think freedom is a good thing, while simultaneously not supporting those who would abuse it.

I have seen nothing in any of these laws / proposed laws that would require the business owners to explicitly and openly inform the general public as to who they are / are not willing to serve. And even if they did, this would harken bay to the days of "Whites Only " and "No N____r Allowed " signs. Is this what we, as a society want?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 12:23:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 12:08:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:02:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.

Why do you think he would use a florist that doesn't serve gay people. I think it is one thing to support a policy, because it is the correct thing to do, but supporting a business that does that is not the correct thing to do.

Should it be illegal for businesses to treat customers rudely? The answer is no. That policy would be unethical, but you should still use common sense to not patronize that business. You can think freedom is a good thing, while simultaneously not supporting those who would abuse it.

I have seen nothing in any of these laws / proposed laws that would require the business owners to explicitly and openly inform the general public as to who they are / are not willing to serve. And even if they did, this would harken bay to the days of "Whites Only " and "No N____r Allowed " signs. Is this what we, as a society want?

Do you honestly think that the country would revert back to that? Do you think McDonalds would put up a sign that said "No Niggers Allowed"?

It is not the governments job to legislate morality. It is despicable when the Republican Party does it and it is even more despicable when the Democratic party does that.

Do you want a government to create fair laws that, treat every group equally or do you want them to bend to whatever the whims of society are in their policy making decisions?

Is it fair that florists are forced to serve Gay couples?

Would it also be unfair for a Place that sells soul food to turn down my business because I wear my KKK a white good in there?

There is something inconsistent I your beliefs about how policies should be created if you think one of those scenarios should be illegal and the other legal.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 12:28:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 2:17:57 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

The State of Indiana has become the 20th state in the nation to legalize homophobic discrimination under the auspices that failure to do so amounts to the imposition of a "substantial burden" on religious freedom. What constitutes a "substantial burden" remains an open question.
"Discrimination" and "reasonable person" are also open questions and vague, so I'm not sure what you are criticizing.

Very powerful CEO's and other public figures have sharply contemned the law, as have legal analysts who describe the law as "one of the most sweeping" yet passed.
So?
Why should the law care about what businesses say, amirite? It's not they are people?
Seriously, though, why should one assume businesses' motives are pure?
My work here is, finally, done.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 12:44:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?

Because businesses will never be ethical unless they are forced to be so.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 12:50:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 12:23:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 12:08:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:02:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.

Why do you think he would use a florist that doesn't serve gay people. I think it is one thing to support a policy, because it is the correct thing to do, but supporting a business that does that is not the correct thing to do.

Should it be illegal for businesses to treat customers rudely? The answer is no. That policy would be unethical, but you should still use common sense to not patronize that business. You can think freedom is a good thing, while simultaneously not supporting those who would abuse it.

I have seen nothing in any of these laws / proposed laws that would require the business owners to explicitly and openly inform the general public as to who they are / are not willing to serve. And even if they did, this would harken bay to the days of "Whites Only " and "No N____r Allowed " signs. Is this what we, as a society want?

Do you honestly think that the country would revert back to that? Do you think McDonalds would put up a sign that said "No Niggers Allowed"?

It is not the governments job to legislate morality. It is despicable when the Republican Party does it and it is even more despicable when the Democratic party does that.

Do you want a government to create fair laws that, treat every group equally or do you want them to bend to whatever the whims of society are in their policy making decisions?

Is it fair that florists are forced to serve Gay couples?

Would it also be unfair for a Place that sells soul food to turn down my business because I wear my KKK a white good in there?

There is something inconsistent I your beliefs about how policies should be created if you think one of those scenarios should be illegal and the other legal.

No. The error is in your misapplication.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 12:54:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.

He can disagree with the restaurant's decision but agree with their right to choose who to serve.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:01:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 12:44:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?

Because businesses will never be ethical unless they are forced to be so.

Neither will any individual, but there should be some respect for freedom. You can't outlaw everything that society finds unethical, and what is seen as ethical now may not seem that way in 100 years, why shoul out descendants be forced to adhere to an outdated moral code?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:02:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 12:50:49 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 12:23:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 12:08:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/31/2015 8:02:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.

Why do you think he would use a florist that doesn't serve gay people. I think it is one thing to support a policy, because it is the correct thing to do, but supporting a business that does that is not the correct thing to do.

Should it be illegal for businesses to treat customers rudely? The answer is no. That policy would be unethical, but you should still use common sense to not patronize that business. You can think freedom is a good thing, while simultaneously not supporting those who would abuse it.

I have seen nothing in any of these laws / proposed laws that would require the business owners to explicitly and openly inform the general public as to who they are / are not willing to serve. And even if they did, this would harken bay to the days of "Whites Only " and "No N____r Allowed " signs. Is this what we, as a society want?

Do you honestly think that the country would revert back to that? Do you think McDonalds would put up a sign that said "No Niggers Allowed"?

It is not the governments job to legislate morality. It is despicable when the Republican Party does it and it is even more despicable when the Democratic party does that.

Do you want a government to create fair laws that, treat every group equally or do you want them to bend to whatever the whims of society are in their policy making decisions?

Is it fair that florists are forced to serve Gay couples?

Would it also be unfair for a Place that sells soul food to turn down my business because I wear my KKK a white good in there?

There is something inconsistent I your beliefs about how policies should be created if you think one of those scenarios should be illegal and the other legal.

No. The error is in your misapplication.

How so? How should policies be determined?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:05:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You guys are so anti freedom it makes me sick. People will support freedom when it suits them and be against it when they think it doesn't. It is just completely evil to think the government should be a tool to impose your morality on the people.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:09:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:01:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 12:44:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?

Because businesses will never be ethical unless they are forced to be so.

Neither will any individual, but there should be some respect for freedom. You can't outlaw everything that society finds unethical, and what is seen as ethical now may not seem that way in 100 years, why shoul out descendants be forced to adhere to an outdated moral code?

Exactly. The respect for the freedom of the individual to use a given business. Not the respect for the freedom of the business to be hateful. Proper ethics will take such freedom into account and not change with the wind; for example, slavery was always unethical
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:12:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.

A restaurant that doesn't serves gays is discriminating against individual inherent characteristics, which means it is just as bad as racism, sexism or ageism.

However, a florist who does not serve a gay wedding is just making a political stance, namely that he/she does not support the concept of gay marriage. This is not necessarily discriminating against homosexuals per se, just those who choose to enact a particular ceremony that the florist disapproves of.

To use an analogy, it is discriminatory to not serve Aztecs simply because of their ethnicity, but it is not wrong to not serve an Aztec who decides to perform a human sacrifice. This is because one is not discriminating against an inherent characteristic, but a particular social ceremony.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:17:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:09:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:01:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 12:44:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?

Because businesses will never be ethical unless they are forced to be so.

Neither will any individual, but there should be some respect for freedom. You can't outlaw everything that society finds unethical, and what is seen as ethical now may not seem that way in 100 years, why shoul out descendants be forced to adhere to an outdated moral code?

Exactly. The respect for the freedom of the individual to use a given business. Not the respect for the freedom of the business to be hateful. Proper ethics will take such freedom into account and not change with the wind; for example, slavery was always unethical

Why shouldn't the owners of businesses also have the right to choose who they do business with?

Why is only the freedom of the consumer taken into account?

How about we give everybody freedom to do business with who they want?

How about we start valuing freedom instead of just using the word when it benefits us?

Gay people should have the feedom to Marry, and businesses should have the freedom to not support or condone such action.

ER, is freedom good? Or is it only good when it benefits you or your ethical framework?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:20:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think businesses should be able to discriminate for any reason they feel like. Certain obvious exceptions must be made for utilities and such, because politicians have unfortunately not had the same view of freedom as me and have created policies that make the barrier of entry to being a utility company extremely high.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:22:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:17:35 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:09:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:01:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 12:44:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?

Because businesses will never be ethical unless they are forced to be so.

Neither will any individual, but there should be some respect for freedom. You can't outlaw everything that society finds unethical, and what is seen as ethical now may not seem that way in 100 years, why shoul out descendants be forced to adhere to an outdated moral code?

Exactly. The respect for the freedom of the individual to use a given business. Not the respect for the freedom of the business to be hateful. Proper ethics will take such freedom into account and not change with the wind; for example, slavery was always unethical

Why shouldn't the owners of businesses also have the right to choose who they do business with?

Because when they do, someone is harmed. When the consumer does, no one is harmed.

Why is only the freedom of the consumer taken into account?

Above

How about we give everybody freedom to do business with who they want?

With everyone and anyone, where no one can be excluded for asinine reasons.

How about we start valuing freedom instead of just using the word when it benefits us?

Gay people should have the feedom to Marry, and businesses should have the freedom to not support or condone such action.

They don't have to support gay marriage. They can't fire people for their sexuality. They can't discriminate because of sexuality. And so on.

ER, is freedom good? Or is it only good when it benefits you or your ethical framework?

Freedom is good in small amounts.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:23:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:20:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
I think businesses should be able to discriminate for any reason they feel like. Certain obvious exceptions must be made for utilities and such, because politicians have unfortunately not had the same view of freedom as me and have created policies that make the barrier of entry to being a utility company extremely high.

You clearly do not understand basic economics if you think that policies are what create barriers of entry for things like utility companies.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:24:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:12:44 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 3/31/2015 7:53:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I just heard that Gov of Indiana said he would never eat at a restauant that does not serve gays. Yet he supports using a florist that does not serve a gay wedding. Im not quite followng the distinction.

A restaurant that doesn't serves gays is discriminating against individual inherent characteristics, which means it is just as bad as racism, sexism or ageism.

However, a florist who does not serve a gay wedding is just making a political stance, namely that he/she does not support the concept of gay marriage. This is not necessarily discriminating against homosexuals per se, just those who choose to enact a particular ceremony that the florist disapproves of.

To use an analogy, it is discriminatory to not serve Aztecs simply because of their ethnicity, but it is not wrong to not serve an Aztec who decides to perform a human sacrifice. This is because one is not discriminating against an inherent characteristic, but a particular social ceremony.

This is a great explanation.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:27:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:22:06 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:17:35 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:09:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:01:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 12:44:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:56:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
I don't get it. Why shouldn't businesses be able to refuse services to whoever they feel like. I understand forcing to have businesses serve everybody indiscriminately if they have a monopoly such as utility companies, but why exactly would we want to prevent small business owners (big business owners would face too much blowback to ever discriminate for stupid reasons), from discriminating for whatever reason?

Why should a business be forced to do business with somebody they don't want to?

Because businesses will never be ethical unless they are forced to be so.

Neither will any individual, but there should be some respect for freedom. You can't outlaw everything that society finds unethical, and what is seen as ethical now may not seem that way in 100 years, why shoul out descendants be forced to adhere to an outdated moral code?

Exactly. The respect for the freedom of the individual to use a given business. Not the respect for the freedom of the business to be hateful. Proper ethics will take such freedom into account and not change with the wind; for example, slavery was always unethical

Why shouldn't the owners of businesses also have the right to choose who they do business with?

Because when they do, someone is harmed. When the consumer does, no one is harmed.

Small picture. When we respect freedom everyone is helped. Also yes, boycotting businesses do hurt them, but that is not the point. The point is to have the government act in a way where we can all act within our own ethical framework. What's the harm anyway. If BK doesn't serve gays they can eat at McDonalds.

Why is only the freedom of the consumer taken into account?

Above

How about we give everybody freedom to do business with who they want?

With everyone and anyone, where no one can be excluded for asinine reasons.

That contradicts your posts that say businesses should only be able to discriminate for reasons you approve of.

How about we start valuing freedom instead of just using the word when it benefits us?

Gay people should have the feedom to Marry, and businesses should have the freedom to not support or condone such action.

They don't have to support gay marriage. They can't fire people for their sexuality. They can't discriminate because of sexuality. And so on.

We aren't talking about that, we are discussing who they want to do business with. You want to force somebody with ideological positions against gay marriage to be a vendor at their event.

ER, is freedom good? Or is it only good when it benefits you or your ethical framework?

Freedom is good in small amounts.

Then move to North Korea
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:32:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:23:11 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:20:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
I think businesses should be able to discriminate for any reason they feel like. Certain obvious exceptions must be made for utilities and such, because politicians have unfortunately not had the same view of freedom as me and have created policies that make the barrier of entry to being a utility company extremely high.

You clearly do not understand basic economics if you think that policies are what create barriers of entry for things like utility companies.

It is simple cause and effect. Before the FDA came about 90% of the food we are came from small businesses. Before glass Steagull most banking was done by small banks. Policies typically make barrier to entry harder for businesses. I shouldn't even have to discuss stats to prove this.

It is obvious that the more expensive it is to adhere to government policies and the more rope you have to cut through, the less likely you are to get your business off the ground. A few big companies fooled the American people into thinking the FDA was a good ideal and those same ones cornered the market, same thing with banking.

This thread isn't even about that. It is about whether business owners should have freedom if it goes against the whim of whatever people find ethical at the time.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:42:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:32:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:23:11 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:20:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
I think businesses should be able to discriminate for any reason they feel like. Certain obvious exceptions must be made for utilities and such, because politicians have unfortunately not had the same view of freedom as me and have created policies that make the barrier of entry to being a utility company extremely high.

You clearly do not understand basic economics if you think that policies are what create barriers of entry for things like utility companies.

It is simple cause and effect. Before the FDA came about 90% of the food we are came from small businesses. Before glass Steagull most banking was done by small banks. Policies typically make barrier to entry harder for businesses. I shouldn't even have to discuss stats to prove this.
First of all, utility companies and agriculture are very different industries. The point I was making is that for a utility company, the real barrier of entry is the infrastructure required to provide their service, not government regulations. You can argue that the FDA has made it harder for small businesses to provide food, and that's fine. I have no problem with that. I prefer getting food that I know is safe to eat from large agribusiness, than getting food with no quality control from small farmers or butchers.
It is obvious that the more expensive it is to adhere to government policies and the more rope you have to cut through, the less likely you are to get your business off the ground. A few big companies fooled the American people into thinking the FDA was a good ideal and those same ones cornered the market, same thing with banking.
What? No. This is wrong. The FDA forced big companies to stop producing disgustingly unsafe meat in order to protect consumers. If you'd rather go back to the time when there was no regulation, you haven't read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.
This thread isn't even about that. It is about whether business owners should have freedom if it goes against the whim of whatever people find ethical at the time.
Yes, I know this thread is about something else. For what it's worth, I actually think it's ok for businesses to refuse to service an event they don't approve of, for whatever reason. The only exception is if the consumer cannot obtain that service anywhere because all of the businesses are discriminating against them. Like in the South before the Federal Government stepped in and ended segregation. So if there is a town where all of the florists and bakers refuse to service a gay marriage, then someone who wants to get gay married there is being unlawfully discriminated against.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 1:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 1:42:34 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:32:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:23:11 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/31/2015 1:20:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
I think businesses should be able to discriminate for any reason they feel like. Certain obvious exceptions must be made for utilities and such, because politicians have unfortunately not had the same view of freedom as me and have created policies that make the barrier of entry to being a utility company extremely high.

You clearly do not understand basic economics if you think that policies are what create barriers of entry for things like utility companies.

It is simple cause and effect. Before the FDA came about 90% of the food we are came from small businesses. Before glass Steagull most banking was done by small banks. Policies typically make barrier to entry harder for businesses. I shouldn't even have to discuss stats to prove this.
First of all, utility companies and agriculture are very different industries. The point I was making is that for a utility company, the real barrier of entry is the infrastructure required to provide their service, not government regulations. You can argue that the FDA has made it harder for small businesses to provide food, and that's fine. I have no problem with that. I prefer getting food that I know is safe to eat from large agribusiness, than getting food with no quality control from small farmers or butchers.
It is obvious that the more expensive it is to adhere to government policies and the more rope you have to cut through, the less likely you are to get your business off the ground. A few big companies fooled the American people into thinking the FDA was a good ideal and those same ones cornered the market, same thing with banking.
What? No. This is wrong. The FDA forced big companies to stop producing disgustingly unsafe meat in order to protect consumers. If you'd rather go back to the time when there was no regulation, you haven't read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.
This thread isn't even about that. It is about whether business owners should have freedom if it goes against the whim of whatever people find ethical at the time.
Yes, I know this thread is about something else. For what it's worth, I actually think it's ok for businesses to refuse to service an event they don't approve of, for whatever reason. The only exception is if the consumer cannot obtain that service anywhere because all of the businesses are discriminating against them. Like in the South before the Federal Government stepped in and ended segregation. So if there is a town where all of the florists and bakers refuse to service a gay marriage, then someone who wants to get gay married there is being unlawfully discriminated against.

I think I agree with most of that. As far as safe food being concerned, I think that there are Libertarian solutions to that problem that don't require any sort of regulatory commitee. If your business causes a death and you didn't take reasonable steps to prevent that, than you can face not only stiff fines, but stiff prison sentences. In our world rich people that put bad drugs on the market that end up killing people could end up with some pretty stiff fines, but in my world they face the possibility of being executed, so it balances out in my opinion.