14 years and counting...
Comments
-
Not Jim Crow, that covered every aspect of life, in particular voting. It prevented blacks from having a voice in the governed. Brown did deal with schooling, but throwing out the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" standard was probably the critical hurdle in being able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act. The "market" was not able to create an equal society so gov't had to step in.unsung said:
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?mrussel1 said:
Except in this country, we had a little thing called Jim Crow. It's too bad people's racial beliefs aren't directly affiliated with laissez-faire capitalism, otherwise your suggestion might work. But unfortunately, in the real world, laissez-faire capitalism fails because of the corruption of man. This is the same reason why the Civil Rights Act was necessary, along with Brown v Board. History is a better predictor of events than an economic philosophy.unsung said:
Yes. Is it right to do? No. But I don't believe in government forcing people to run their private business how it sees fit.HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
I also fully support how the market would react.0 -
I agree you can't have a whites-only business: I believe that the people should be making that call. They should be publicly shaming the individuals in charge of the business. They should be boycotting the business. Distributing flyers with their faces on them. Reducing them to either declaring bankruptcy, or removing intolerance.Gern Blansten said:
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.
The government's job is to prevent the spread of bigotry as much as possible. Fuck no you can't have a whites only business.
Just because I believe in restricting the government's reach doesn't mean that I'm "ok with whites only businesses" - it means I'd like to hold society responsible and accountable for society's directions.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
Can I nominate this for the most ignorant comment of the week? Is there a competition here on the AMT? If not there should be, maybe with prizes?RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
What’s the gay chromosome called?dignin said:
Utter nonsense.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
The gay couple were being discriminated against because of something they were born with, similar to their gender or colour of their skin.
Sanders chooses to be a piece a shit.0 -
When did it become political to make a purchase. You should be able to make a purchase, buy a cake, have a dinner without any issue.unsung said:
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.0 -
you put too much stock in the intelligence of humans.unsung said:Then you don't believe in freedom.
Do we agree with that business plan? No. But in a free society a business like that should be allowed to exist...and fail. The market would determine that. Government should not. That isn't why government exists.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
the whole model is that we elect a representative, the best and brightest among us, to steer the ship where it needs to go. unfortunately, the best and brightest among us are no longer our representatives. and that's actually a direct reflection on the idiot public for worshipping actors and musicians for their popularity rather than substance or intellect.benjs said:
Very true! But what can we honestly rely on for guidance if not our society at large, or our government which are made up of the very same self-serving humans? I'm mentally brought right back to the "we're fucked either way you look at it" point of view.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.
we need to fix the model, not throw it away.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Fair enough. My position was based on the aspect of a private business. Thanks.mrussel1 said:
Not Jim Crow, that covered every aspect of life, in particular voting. It prevented blacks from having a voice in the governed. Brown did deal with schooling, but throwing out the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" standard was probably the critical hurdle in being able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act. The "market" was not able to create an equal society so gov't had to step in.unsung said:
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?mrussel1 said:
Except in this country, we had a little thing called Jim Crow. It's too bad people's racial beliefs aren't directly affiliated with laissez-faire capitalism, otherwise your suggestion might work. But unfortunately, in the real world, laissez-faire capitalism fails because of the corruption of man. This is the same reason why the Civil Rights Act was necessary, along with Brown v Board. History is a better predictor of events than an economic philosophy.unsung said:
Yes. Is it right to do? No. But I don't believe in government forcing people to run their private business how it sees fit.HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
I also fully support how the market would react.0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
You do understand that such a business likely does exist and if made public there would be outrage, right?HughFreakingDillon said:
you put too much stock in the intelligence of humans.unsung said:Then you don't believe in freedom.
Do we agree with that business plan? No. But in a free society a business like that should be allowed to exist...and fail. The market would determine that. Government should not. That isn't why government exists.0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I support private property.LongestRoad said:
When did it become political to make a purchase. You should be able to make a purchase, buy a cake, have a dinner without any issue.unsung said:
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Exactly this.benjs said:
I agree you can't have a whites-only business: I believe that the people should be making that call. They should be publicly shaming the individuals in charge of the business. They should be boycotting the business. Distributing flyers with their faces on them. Reducing them to either declaring bankruptcy, or removing intolerance.Gern Blansten said:
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.
The government's job is to prevent the spread of bigotry as much as possible. Fuck no you can't have a whites only business.
Just because I believe in restricting the government's reach doesn't mean that I'm "ok with whites only businesses" - it means I'd like to hold society responsible and accountable for society's directions.0 -
of course.unsung said:
You do understand that such a business likely does exist and if made public there would be outrage, right?HughFreakingDillon said:
you put too much stock in the intelligence of humans.unsung said:Then you don't believe in freedom.
Do we agree with that business plan? No. But in a free society a business like that should be allowed to exist...and fail. The market would determine that. Government should not. That isn't why government exists.
I prefer to extinguish a fire before I got to bed.
you prefer to let it burn itself out with the possibilty that it will spread and get out of control and you wake up with your hair on fire.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Understood, but what we've learned is that the market needs guardrails. Before the SEC existed, there was rampant speculation, wild swings and total market manipulation that caused panics, recessions, etc. Before the prohibition of monopolies, you would have one company corner the market on a necessary product, and create unfair pricing that was not market driven. You would also have "company towns" where a business forced the employees to live, eat and shop at establishments owned by the mill, factory, etc. The point is that laissez-faire capitalism is a great idea, but it has never been successful because of man's penchant to corrupt. Therefore guardrails need to be established. The same goes for the anti-discrimination laws that were enacted in teh 20th century.unsung said:
Fair enough. My position was based on the aspect of a private business. Thanks.mrussel1 said:
Not Jim Crow, that covered every aspect of life, in particular voting. It prevented blacks from having a voice in the governed. Brown did deal with schooling, but throwing out the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" standard was probably the critical hurdle in being able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act. The "market" was not able to create an equal society so gov't had to step in.unsung said:
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?mrussel1 said:
Except in this country, we had a little thing called Jim Crow. It's too bad people's racial beliefs aren't directly affiliated with laissez-faire capitalism, otherwise your suggestion might work. But unfortunately, in the real world, laissez-faire capitalism fails because of the corruption of man. This is the same reason why the Civil Rights Act was necessary, along with Brown v Board. History is a better predictor of events than an economic philosophy.unsung said:
Yes. Is it right to do? No. But I don't believe in government forcing people to run their private business how it sees fit.HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
I also fully support how the market would react.0 -
I can't believe that it's 2018 and I'm reading a serious conversation about whether or not it should be okay and legal for businesses to post "whites only" signs. Really, did I wake up in the Twilight Zone?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
In a democracy the people do make that call by electing governments. If the people don't like what the governments do they vote for another government to change those laws.benjs said:
I agree you can't have a whites-only business: I believe that the people should be making that call. They should be publicly shaming the individuals in charge of the business. They should be boycotting the business. Distributing flyers with their faces on them. Reducing them to either declaring bankruptcy, or removing intolerance.Gern Blansten said:
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.
The government's job is to prevent the spread of bigotry as much as possible. Fuck no you can't have a whites only business.
Just because I believe in restricting the government's reach doesn't mean that I'm "ok with whites only businesses" - it means I'd like to hold society responsible and accountable for society's directions.
It's what we do a civil society so we get along.0 -
it's not specifically about that issue. that was just my example. I think it's a great hypothetical; would the world work better if society governed itself?PJ_Soul said:I can't believe that it's 2018 and I'm reading a serious conversation about whether or not it should be okay and legal for businesses to post "whites only" signs. Really, did I wake up in the Twilight Zone?Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
The problem with this is when the damaging attitude becomes prevalent. Then what?benjs said:
I agree you can't have a whites-only business: I believe that the people should be making that call. They should be publicly shaming the individuals in charge of the business. They should be boycotting the business. Distributing flyers with their faces on them. Reducing them to either declaring bankruptcy, or removing intolerance.Gern Blansten said:
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.
The government's job is to prevent the spread of bigotry as much as possible. Fuck no you can't have a whites only business.
Just because I believe in restricting the government's reach doesn't mean that I'm "ok with whites only businesses" - it means I'd like to hold society responsible and accountable for society's directions.
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
It's open to the public so unless someone is commiting a crime or doing something that could cause harm to others or themselves, anyone should be able to make a purchase.unsung said:
I support private property.LongestRoad said:
When did it become political to make a purchase. You should be able to make a purchase, buy a cake, have a dinner without any issue.unsung said:
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
We've never really had true capitalism though, at least not for a long time.mrussel1 said:
Understood, but what we've learned is that the market needs guardrails. Before the SEC existed, there was rampant speculation, wild swings and total market manipulation that caused panics, recessions, etc. Before the prohibition of monopolies, you would have one company corner the market on a necessary product, and create unfair pricing that was not market driven. You would also have "company towns" where a business forced the employees to live, eat and shop at establishments owned by the mill, factory, etc. The point is that laissez-faire capitalism is a great idea, but it has never been successful because of man's penchant to corrupt. Therefore guardrails need to be established. The same goes for the anti-discrimination laws that were enacted in teh 20th century.unsung said:
Fair enough. My position was based on the aspect of a private business. Thanks.mrussel1 said:
Not Jim Crow, that covered every aspect of life, in particular voting. It prevented blacks from having a voice in the governed. Brown did deal with schooling, but throwing out the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" standard was probably the critical hurdle in being able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act. The "market" was not able to create an equal society so gov't had to step in.unsung said:
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?mrussel1 said:
Except in this country, we had a little thing called Jim Crow. It's too bad people's racial beliefs aren't directly affiliated with laissez-faire capitalism, otherwise your suggestion might work. But unfortunately, in the real world, laissez-faire capitalism fails because of the corruption of man. This is the same reason why the Civil Rights Act was necessary, along with Brown v Board. History is a better predictor of events than an economic philosophy.unsung said:
Yes. Is it right to do? No. But I don't believe in government forcing people to run their private business how it sees fit.HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
I also fully support how the market would react.0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
We are 180* out. The business owner invested in the business. The business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.LongestRoad said:
It's open to the public so unless someone is commiting a crime or doing something that could cause harm to others or themselves, anyone should be able to make a purchase.unsung said:
I support private property.LongestRoad said:
When did it become political to make a purchase. You should be able to make a purchase, buy a cake, have a dinner without any issue.unsung said:
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.
The market has the right to react and support or not support.0 -
You need to read a history book.unsung said:
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves.benjs said:
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!HughFreakingDillon said:
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?benjs said:
I may have a different opinion than some here. I don't believe my freedom of speech should be impeded by my government, but by my society. The double-edged sword to this is that whether my society becomes progressive and accepting, or a regressive and intolerant one, the citizenry (we) are the architects of our future society.mace1229 said:
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?LongestRoad said:
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner".brianlux said:LongestRoad said:
The limits seem to be only what liberals feel should be the limits and they can change them to fit their agenda at any time.brianlux said:unsung said:Oh btw, now you all support private property rights!
Bake the cake! Serve the dinner!Within limits. First of all, no one owns land. Land belongs to the earth. The earth will reclaim its own in due time. Secondly, those who do "own" land on paper have an obligation to treat it with respect. Abuse your land base and you put yourself (either individually or as a species) at risk. Abuse your land base, and the earth will reclaim its own all that much sooner.This, of course, is a biocentric viewpoint. An anthropocentric viewpoint will probably see it differently. But as always, earth bats last.What in the holy fuck does basic environmental science have to do with anyone being a "liberal" and of what "agenda" do you speak?Oh well. I'm glad you're here to keep us amused.
Let's be fair either you agree everyone gets served or you can pick and choose who you as the owner or manager want to serve. What's it gonna be?
Agree with the baker or not, they had a specific reason of religious beliefs. They were also willing to serve the gay community, just not a specific event that went against the belief. That being said, I think they should have just done it.
Sanders was refused service for no reason other than they just don’t like her based on her political views. To me that seems far more extreme, no real reason. What if this was an Obamacare staffer that was refused service because the owner didn’t agree with Obamacare?
Do you really want to open up that window to discriminate against people you just done agree with?
Im surprised at everyone supporting this restaurant owner.
If I want to treat any group with special treatment, that's my prerogative, and with that act, I accept that there are potentially going to be social ramifications which could include legal protests and boycotting of my business, as are within the rights of the citizenry. I disagree with the government's intervention in such matters, as I believe we need an engaged citizenry to discuss what is just and right, and what is unjust, rather than giving us a free pass while the government mandates ethics (meaning we never truly seek justice, we only seek living within legal boundaries). The baker risked his credibility amongst society, just as the restauranteur did. Society (we) must speak up on which we deem acceptable.
In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for.
All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok.
I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both.
More than one.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help