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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Have you ever been on a First Nation reserve ... I have. It's despicable that its how we treat our First Nations people. I will say one thing about First Nations people ... most respect the environment that surrounds them. Other that the housing and lack of clean water on some of the reserves, their properties are clean and they don't cut every last tree so they can have the perfect manicured yards that seem to be a common theme in the towns and cities occupied by Europeans thieves.
I sympathize with first nations people as much as anyone, but seriously, I drive by many reserves on the way to my in law's cottage. they are usually big piles of trash everywhere you look.
Not the reserves I've been to in Ontario. And so what if there is trash. It's their land, yet the politicians that descendant from European immigrants continue to dictate policy to our first nations people...maybe if Trudeau quit giving 100's of millions to every other country and gave that money tolour First Nations maybe then we can start to make things right...by the way I've been to enough cities to know that people who live in those cities are great a creating trash and littering, and 99.9% of those people are immigrants and descendants of immigrants and yet they come to someone else's land and disrepects this land and destroys it...
of course it is their land and can do so as they wish. I'm just countering your claim that "their properties are clean" and "they respect the environment".
When I said respect the environment ... I meant along the lines that they don't cut every last tree down... litter is everywhere. but far worse in the cities.
Please enumerate the benefits that immigrants get that aren’t available to the people here.
Free healthcare, free housing, free food, cash assistance. I know you already know this but choose to act unaware.
I missed this post earlier. You don't actually believe this do you?
Where did you learn this from?
Alex Jones Breitbart Focksnooze Infomax RT Richard Spencer Daily Stormer
Nope. It's by living in the real world not a bubble.
That is absolute bullshit. If you lived in the real world you would understand the actual realities of the economics of immigrants. Immigrants contribute positively to the economy in the long run, not negatively. For whatever help they may get, depending on the situation (no, it's not how you just intimated - free everything, lol. If that's what you really think you're in la la land), they make up for it and then some in the long run. Immigration is an economic PLUS in North America, and absolutely key to economic growth. You'd know that if you stopped living in YOUR bubble. Honestly, it seems like you've essentially stopped thinking of immigrants as actual people with lives. They've just become some kind of "other" to you, an other that doesn't have aspirations, who don't work and contribute in their own ways, who don't have futures or hopes or anything to do with society besides being leaches. Apparently they are not people who contribute to the economy in your mind, or to the work force, or anything. It's alarming that so many people think this way.
European Immigrants went about to systematically destroy every thing great about NA ... As a descendent from immigrants the worst thing to ever happen to First Nations people, the wildlife and absolute Canada the beautiful country they stole from the First Nations people. Whats worst yet, is why the fuck do First Nations people need to live under laws created by their European conquerers .... make no mistake we are living on STOLEN LAND with more than enough money and resources to make it right with our First Nations peoples. And JT is full of shit in his empty promises ... cash will fixl a lot of whats wrong with our first nations people.
..... That's veering pretty far off topic, no? I'm sure you know that I'm talking about current events in the context of the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration, and not about the history of Europeans decimating Native populations? I'd like to keep it to the topic of the thread if you don't mind. I do think what you're talking about is a worthwhile discussion, but not in this thread.
No it's not ... the topic is immigration. You believe immigrants contribute positively. I do not believe they have. They brought disease, alcoholism, with their over hunting and farming practices they have put so majestic species at risk of extinction and how many forest did the European immigrant remove for their farms. Plus immigrants contribute to the over population of our cities...
So you think every person in this country's history with the exception of Native Americans have contributed nothing positive? I'm a little confused by your statement. So you're slamming ALL immigrants to this country including the Europeans that immigrated (or invaded, if you like) here in the 1600's?
So you feel good that the Descendants of European immigrants stole this land and and dictate how our First Nations people live ... give your fucking selfish ignorant head a shake.
Don't fucking put words in my mouth. I was simply asking what exactly you were saying. I didn't say "I feel good" about anything.
This is stolen land in North America ... that's what I'm saying. No immigrants do not contribute positively in my opinion. They use up far to many resources, and in Canada most people DO NOT want inhabit a great part of this country because it is the second coldest country on earth, so the immigrants clog up and congest our cities even more.
People need to acknowledge our First Nations people ... they should be able to live anywhere in North America tax free, hunt and fish (and barter their catch) anywhere in NA free from licences and limits.
Well this just means that you're a misinformed modern anti-immigrant kinda guy, just like my crotchety old parents (who is throwing in the unrelated First Nations issue as a red herring as far as I can tell). Yes, immigrants DO contribute positively to the economy and the work force. That's a fact, not an opinion.
You are mis informed ... YOU and every European immigrant or descendent of an immigrant are stolen land ... and those politicians that descend from europeans will not make it right....so quit accusing people of SOMETHING they are not....
You're not making too much sense anymore ... You day drunk? Maybe high?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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 1
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
Agreed.
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
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.
I also fully support how the market would react.
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.
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?
Again, I assign the blame on the parents. The US govt is responsible as far as allowing incentives to be handed out to the people illegally coming here.
So you have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject? You can blame the parents all you want, but then children are hurt. Is that okay with you because it's the parents' fault?
Don't blame me, blame the parents. I did not bring them to a place where there are consequences.
My sympathy with the children is that they are being used as political pawns.
Do you factor in that most of these individuals and families are fleeing violence severe enough that facing these potential consequences seems like the better option?
Do you factor in that the violence exists because our border is not secure?
I disagree that the violence in those countries stems from the state of the American border, or that it would be fixed by a more “secure” border
Then you don't understand the problem.
So.. control of the border will create peace in Central America? You think the SW border is the only way drugs can get into the US?
No, but it would be a huge start.
so locking people inside a burning building puts out the fire?
GENIUS
No what you do is you send in the people that are trained to put out the fire. I totally afree with this We need to send the military in and extinguish the scum that's causing the problems for the good people that just want to live their lives without corruption.
just so we're clear:
you are suggesting/advocating for starting a war/invading Mexico?
And several other central and South American countries?
If it gives the countries back to the majority of good people there why not. We would be able to have a more open border.
And I'm betting there would be a load of people from thise countries helping us. You think the people wouldn't prefer to live and prosper in their own country. People don't want to flee to another country and have their families seperated.
It’s true that people don’t want to flee to other countries, but it’s also true that people don’t generally want another country’s army invading them.
Unless their country has been overtaken by corrupt crimminals. The people down there are trying to form their own "armies" to combat the drug lords down there. This applies to anyone. Don't defend the corrupt. It makes it look like you have a stake in it.
yeah, often is defending the corrupt. HAHA. that's exactly what he is doing. HAHAH
I didn't mean it for oftenreading. That's why I wrote anyone.
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.
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.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
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.
I also fully support how the market would react.
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.
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.
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.
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.
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 1
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
Utter nonsense.
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.
What’s the gay chromosome called?
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?
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
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.
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.
you put too much stock in the intelligence of humans.
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
we need to fix the model, not throw it away.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
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.
I also fully support how the market would react.
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.
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?
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.
Fair enough. My position was based on the aspect of a private business. Thanks.
0
Options
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
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.
you put too much stock in the intelligence of humans.
You do understand that such a business likely does exist and if made public there would be outrage, right?
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
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.
I support private property.
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
you put too much stock in the intelligence of humans.
You do understand that such a business likely does exist and if made public there would be outrage, right?
of course.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
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.
I also fully support how the market would react.
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.
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?
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.
Fair enough. My position was based on the aspect of a private business. Thanks.
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.
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. ~ Desiderata
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with this is when the damaging attitude becomes prevalent. Then what?
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
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.
I support private property.
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.
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
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.
I also fully support how the market would react.
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.
Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?
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.
Fair enough. My position was based on the aspect of a private business. Thanks.
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.
We've never really had true capitalism though, at least not for a long time.
0
Options
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
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
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.
I support private property.
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.
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.
The market has the right to react and support or not support.
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the response about "bake the cake. Serve the dinner". 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?
Would there be a difference between not serving someone because they happen to homosexual, or not serve a group of nazis?
Yes, I think this restaurant was even worse. 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.
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.
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.
so, in your opinion, a restaurant displaying a "whites only" sign should be legal?
HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!
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.
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.
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.
Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
Comments
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.
www.headstonesband.com
When I said respect the environment ... I meant along the lines that they don't cut every last tree down... litter is everywhere. but far worse in the cities.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
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.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
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.
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.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
we need to fix the model, not throw it away.
www.headstonesband.com
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.
www.headstonesband.com
It's what we do a civil society so we get along.
www.headstonesband.com
The market has the right to react and support or not support.
More than one.