When A Business Denies You Service

[Green Arrow]

Animal Mother and Safety brought up Jim Crow and businesses denying service to gay/black people on another thread.

Personally, I don't think businesses should be forced to serve people they don't want to serve. Why? Well, why would you want to patronize a business that hates you? You're not punishing them by forcing them to serve you, you're making them rich. If I walk into a business and they tell me, "We don't serve your kind here," I'm going to do this as I walk out:

https://33.media.tumblr.com/5e873920a4d5a64638e1f292779f0ff0/tumblr_n40is5i5sr1sid6uxo1_500.gif

https://38.media.tumblr.com/9d3dbc2634102ed86f61153a1380721e/tumblr_mrix9kNi7u1rzd6w3o1_400.gif

And then find me a business that serves "my kind." Seriously, why would I want to give my money to a bigot? Sure, I get some revenge satisfaction in them being forced to serve me, but that's ALL I get. Meanwhile, they get my hard-earned money. They benefit from that arrangement in the end.

[Captain Obvious]

The reality of the matter is - if an autobody shop for example denies me service, as a white guy I have no recourse.

God bless this body shop if they deny a 45yr old hispanic woman service.

[Alyosha]

I had a friend in high school that worked at Josef's bakery in Grosse Pointe. When a customer was rude to her she would go in the back to package the cake, spit on it, and cover it up with whipped cream. I knew someone in college who worked at Outback Steak House. When someone was a dick they would make things happen to the steak.

Anyone who believes public accommodation laws are a good thing is stupid. Good intentioned, probably kind-hearted, but stupid. I want to know who dislikes Jews, Catholics, or lawyers. I don't want to get the person feeding me who just had a nasty divorce.

People forget that Jim Crow laws were government regulations that disallowed blacks from sitting with whites. Had the free market been allowed the choice there would have been restaurants that said, screw it. I'll make more money this way.

Aside from the argument of personal liberty which is important to me, there is still the practicality of forcing someone to do something they don't want to do "just because".

I understand the desire to punish assholes. I'm a bitch and get off on that shit. However, the end result is that I will never know if the person I'm working for is denying my raise or promotion because of who I am. I will never know if the food I'm eating is tainted. I will never get the best quality work from someone who hates me. The way the current laws are written I will never know who I am dealing with and if they will secretly spit in my food, rub it on their ass, etc.

As to the argument about the lone gas station for 100 miles, that's like saying we should all be prevented from swimming in the ocean because every once in a while there will be a shark attack. Today if a black family wrote that they were denied gas on road x, within 20 minutes it would be all over the Internet and that gas station would be vandalized and some other person would see the need for opening a gas station that takes care of blacks.

There is a greater chance of me eating a cake with a loogey hocked into it for being Jewish than there is of me being denied gas should we remove the laws.

[Peter1469]

That and the laws that prevent business discrimination could have been phased out as discrimination became less prevalent. Sort of like we saw with college admissions requirements (although those took way too long).


I had a friend in high school that worked at Josef's bakery in Grosse Pointe. When a customer was rude to her she would go in the back to package the cake, spit on it, and cover it up with whipped cream. I knew someone in college who worked at Outback Steak House. When someone was a dick they would make things happen to the steak.

Anyone who believes public accommodation laws are a good thing is stupid. Good intentioned, probably kind-hearted, but stupid. I want to know who dislikes Jews, Catholics, or lawyers. I don't want to get the person feeding me who just had a nasty divorce.

People forget that Jim Crow laws were government regulations that disallowed blacks from sitting with whites. Had the free market been allowed the choice there would have been restaurants that said, screw it. I'll make more money this way.

Aside from the argument of personal liberty which is important to me, there is still the practicality of forcing someone to do something they don't want to do "just because".

I understand the desire to punish assholes. I'm a bitch and get off on that shit. However, the end result is that I will never know if the person I'm working for is denying my raise or promotion because of who I am. I will never know if the food I'm eating is tainted. I will never get the best quality work from someone who hates me. The way the current laws are written I will never know who I am dealing with and if they will secretly spit in my food, rub it on their ass, etc.

As to the argument about the lone gas station for 100 miles, that's like saying we should all be prevented from swimming in the ocean because every once in a while there will be a shark attack. Today if a black family wrote that they were denied gas on road x, within 20 minutes it would be all over the Internet and that gas station would be vandalized and some other person would see the need for opening a gas station that takes care of blacks.

There is a greater chance of me eating a cake with a loogey hocked into it for being Jewish than there is of me being denied gas should we remove the laws.

[Common Sense]

Yeah, I don't buy this invisible hand bullshit.

If I have to travel out of my way because a certain store or restaurant doesn't want to serve my kind...then that's bullshit. How do you think a kid would feel if all his friends could go into an establishment but they weren't welcome?

You can kick someone out of your business, but not because of their sexual orientation, color or gender. At least in a civilized nation you can't.

[Polecat]

I had a friend in high school that worked at Josef's bakery in Grosse Pointe. When a customer was rude to her she would go in the back to package the cake, spit on it, and cover it up with whipped cream. I knew someone in college who worked at Outback Steak House. When someone was a dick they would make things happen to the steak.

Anyone who believes public accommodation laws are a good thing is stupid. Good intentioned, probably kind-hearted, but stupid. I want to know who dislikes Jews, Catholics, or lawyers. I don't want to get the person feeding me who just had a nasty divorce.

People forget that Jim Crow laws were government regulations that disallowed blacks from sitting with whites. Had the free market been allowed the choice there would have been restaurants that said, screw it. I'll make more money this way.

Aside from the argument of personal liberty which is important to me, there is still the practicality of forcing someone to do something they don't want to do "just because".

I understand the desire to punish assholes. I'm a bitch and get off on that shit. However, the end result is that I will never know if the person I'm working for is denying my raise or promotion because of who I am. I will never know if the food I'm eating is tainted. I will never get the best quality work from someone who hates me. The way the current laws are written I will never know who I am dealing with and if they will secretly spit in my food, rub it on their ass, etc.

As to the argument about the lone gas station for 100 miles, that's like saying we should all be prevented from swimming in the ocean because every once in a while there will be a shark attack. Today if a black family wrote that they were denied gas on road x, within 20 minutes it would be all over the Internet and that gas station would be vandalized and some other person would see the need for opening a gas station that takes care of blacks.

There is a greater chance of me eating a cake with a loogey hocked into it for being Jewish than there is of me being denied gas should we remove the laws.

Oh sweetie, we all hate lawyers. except when we need one.

[Polecat]

This entire subject is a vicious circle. It boils down to discriminating against the discriminator. Genuine pretzel logic.

[Alyosha]

Yeah, I don't buy this invisible hand bullshit.

Of course you don't. People hate to make money. You're right.




If I have to travel out of my way because a certain store or restaurant doesn't want to serve my kind...then that's bullshit.

It's bullshit, certainly. You're both owed the right to eat somewhere not your house AND you know for a 100% fact that if that person is forced to serve you that you will be treated like everyone else. No one will spit in your food or do anything to it. Once a law comes down, people are angels.




How do you think a kid would feel if all his friends could go into an establishment but they weren't welcome?


Why would white kids take a black kid to a restaurant that said "Whites Only" what kind of asshole kids are these?

As a minority I would much rather see a sign outside a restaurant that says "No Kikes Allowed". I don't want to give neo-Nazi's my money and I don't want to eat their food.

Are you fucking nuts? Why would you ever want to give money to someone that hates you?



You can kick someone out of your business, but not because of their sexual orientation, color or gender. At least in a civilized nation you can't.

Right because all other reasons to kick people out are okay. Being kicked out because you're fat is alright. Being told you can't come to a club because your clothes suck is nice.


I won't even bother. You don't get it. You're a white guy with good intentions. You've never been a minority, don't understand what it's like to be hated.

I will never knowingly, willingly give a guy like Cultcrusher my money and you would deny me that right and force him to serve me. That is the reality of your plan.

[Common Sense]

Of course you don't. People hate to make money. You're right.



It's bullshit, certainly. You're both owed the right to eat somewhere not your house AND you know for a 100% fact that if that person is forced to serve you that you will be treated like everyone else. No one will spit in your food or do anything to it. Once a law comes down, people are angels.



Why would white kids take a black kid to a restaurant that said "Whites Only" what kind of asshole kids are these?

As a minority I would much rather see a sign outside a restaurant that says "No Kikes Allowed". I don't want to give neo-Nazi's my money and I don't want to eat their food.

Are you fucking nuts? Why would you ever want to give money to someone that hates you?



Right because all other reasons to kick people out are okay. Being kicked out because you're fat is alright. Being told you can't come to a club because your clothes suck is nice.


I won't even bother. You don't get it. You're a white guy with good intentions. You've never been a minority, don't understand what it's like to be hated.

I will never knowingly, willingly give a guy like Cultcrusher my money and you would deny me that right and force him to serve me. That is the reality of your plan.

LOL...yeah you're so oppressed. Jews are such a visible minority in America. Come on...don't play that card.

I just find it amazing that given the history of oppression of various minorities that people seem to think this shit will just sort itself out.

Whatever...carry on with the delusion some of you are under.

[Alyosha]

Common Sense

let's pretend that Cultcrusher owns the bakery. If you force him to serve all types then Chloe and I could walk into his bakery with say my uncle in his kippah and order a cake.

He could wait until we leave and decide to do something to us dirty Jews and pee in the batter. At the very least we've just given money unknowingly to a man who thinks we should be killed.

Do you not get that?

[Alyosha]

LOL...yeah you're so oppressed. Jews are such a visible minority in America. Come on...don't play that card.

I was just told that I have dirty Jew blood last week and should be killed. I think you should shut the fuck up, how's that?




I just find it amazing that given the history of oppression of various minorities that people seem to think this shit will just sort itself out.


I find it amazing that woman accomplished the right to vote by themselves by sorting it out. I find it amazing that people do anything at all without the government.



Whatever...carry on with the delusion some of you are under.

It's interesting that the minority on the thread who started it and the other minority say that we don't want these laws and you the non-minority want to shove them on us and get angry when we don't want them.

That's delusion...

[Common Sense]

@Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085)

let's pretend that Cultcrusher owns the bakery. If you force him to serve all types then Chloe and I could walk into his bakery with say my uncle in his kippah and order a cake.

He could wait until we leave and decide to do something to us dirty Jews and pee in the batter. At the very least we've just given money unknowingly to a man who thinks we should be killed.

Do you not get that?

That's a weird hypothetical.

But for some reason the idea of someone like cultcrusher owning a bakery cracks me up.

I get what you're saying...but it goes beyond that.

In Canada we are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can't be discriminated against based on color, creed or sexual orientation. At least not in the legal sense.

[Common Sense]

I was just told that I have dirty Jew blood last week and should be killed. I think you should shut the fuck up, how's that?



I find it amazing that woman accomplished the right to vote by themselves by sorting it out. I find it amazing that people do anything at all without the government.



It's interesting that the minority on the thread who started it and the other minority say that we don't want these laws and you the non-minority want to shove them on us and get angry when we don't want them.

That's delusion...

Calm down...was it on the internet or in person? Because I certainly don't think you would take that in person.

I've been told all sorts of horrible things on the internet.

"Shut the fuck up"? That's nice. Such a fucking ray of sunshine.

[Ethereal]

Yeah, I don't buy this invisible hand bull$#@!.

If I have to travel out of my way because a certain store or restaurant doesn't want to serve my kind...then that's bull$#@!. How do you think a kid would feel if all his friends could go into an establishment but they weren't welcome?

You can kick someone out of your business, but not because of their sexual orientation, color or gender. At least in a civilized nation you can't.

He would probably be a little sad, I guess, but I would just tell him to get over it and stop being such a baby. I'm not trying to be harsh, that's just what I would say. I guess it's because I've had worse things happen to me than being excluded from some loser's store. I grew up with the expectation that Americans were rugged individuals who didn't run to the state every time they got their feelings hurt, that you were supposed to be tough and roll with the punches. I guess I'm just a dying breed.

[Captain Obvious]

@Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085)

let's pretend that Cultcrusher owns the bakery. If you force him to serve all types then Chloe and I could walk into his bakery with say my uncle in his kippah and order a cake.

He could wait until we leave and decide to do something to us dirty Jews and pee in the batter. At the very least we've just given money unknowingly to a man who thinks we should be killed.

Do you not get that?

Or he could just piss in your twinkie batter anyway and not bitch about denying you service if he really hates you.

I'm really neither here nor there on this matter because I think it's a privileged issue. As a white male I am not privileged. Because I'm not gay, a woman, a minority, a non-christian, etc. I have no fucks to give on the matter because nobody denies me services except those people who know I'm an asshole.

So I don't care either way. I do love the schadenfreund that I experience when some bigoted fuck group gets run through the ringer because of their petty bigotry.

Karma has a funny way of catching up.

[Alyosha]

That's a weird hypothetical.

What makes it a weird hypothetical? Jews don't buy cakes? How about the gays? Maybe they buy cakes and Cultcrusher thinks they should die, too.




But for some reason the idea of someone like cultcrusher owning a bakery cracks me up.


You think he's a doctor or lawyer? He's definitely food service industry type.



I get what you're saying...but it goes beyond that.

In Canada we are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can't be discriminated against based on color, creed or sexual orientation. At least not in the legal sense.


I don't care about Canada because we're discussing the US. How do I know that I'm not giving money to someone that thinks I should die and possible would do something detrimental the food I'm ordering?

Under the system you think is so awesome I give money to people that hate me and never know it. How is that the answer in your opinion?

[Alyosha]

Or he could just piss in your twinkie batter anyway and not bitch about denying you service if he really hates you.

If I see a sign that says we only serve whites I'm not going there.

I am with you in that I love to see bigots get theirs, but that can also be accomplished by making fun of them, denying them service, boycotting etc without me ending up getting my shit handled by them or giving them my money unknowingly.

[Polecat]

Or he could just piss in your twinkie batter anyway and not bitch about denying you service if he really hates you.

I'm really neither here nor there on this matter because I think it's a privileged issue. As a white male I am not privileged. Because I'm not gay, a woman, a minority, a non-christian, etc. I have no fucks to give on the matter because nobody denies me services except those people who know I'm an asshole.

So I don't care either way. I do love the schadenfreund that I experience when some bigoted fuck group gets run through the ringer because of their petty bigotry.

Karma has a funny way of catching up.

You should have an insignia attached to all your garments that declare you are an "asshole" for the benefit of those that don't already know you.

[Captain Obvious]

If I see a sign that says we only serve whites I'm not going there.

I am with you in that I love to see bigots get theirs, but that can also be accomplished by making fun of them, denying them service, boycotting etc without me ending up getting my shit handled by them or giving them my money unknowingly.

The ACLU would be all over a "we only serve whites" sign like Libhater on a KKK story.

The other way around? Meh, not so much.

...that's kinda my point.

[Alyosha]

Calm down...was it on the internet or in person? Because I certainly don't think you would take that in person.

Of course I don't take that in person. But you'd also deny me the right to stand up for myself by allowing bigots to hide.




I've been told all sorts of horrible things on the internet.


He also means it. He means it not just about me, but my mother, my grandmother, my brother, my cousins, my boyfriend...



"Shut the fuck up"?

It's French for "sit down and don't say stupid things to me anymore."

[Captain Obvious]

You should have an insignia attached to all your garments that declare you are an "asshole" for the benefit of those that don't already know you.

Scarlet letter - lol.

And it was an A too I believe, for adultery.

I did read that book, in high school. Overnight on a drinking binge so I don't remember much from it.

[Alyosha]

The ACLU would be all over a "we only serve whites" sign like Libhater on a KKK story.

The other way around? Meh, not so much.

...that's kinda my point.

I'm saying without the laws if I see a sign that says "We only serve Whites" I'm not going. I wouldn't go to a place that said "I don't like gays". It's the same type of people.

Right now I unknowingly give money to people I might think are assholes in real life. As someone who doesn't buy Coca-Cola products because of child labor and uses my dollars closely I resent this.

Not to mention I don't think it really solves anything.

[Common Sense]

Of course I don't take that in person. But you'd also deny me the right to stand up for myself by allowing bigots to hide.



He also means it. He means it not just about me, but my mother, my grandmother, my brother, my cousins, my boyfriend...



It's French for "sit down and don't say stupid things to me anymore."

Oh God...I don't deny you the right to do anything.

Yeah, I get it...there is antisemitism out there. I know full well. I've witnessed it with my step father who is Jewish. I've also listened to his parents recall the horrors of Auschwitz.

I think it's actually French for "Fuck you I can't control my anger".

[Mister D]

Segregation was the actual law. I think that is sometimes overlooked. Of course that overlapped with personal prejudice but I have a hard time believing the system could have lasted if business owners coudl do as they pleased.

[Captain Obvious]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/4d/4d16a702b639d272bb82e755cb211d3e82c9a18cb3f9cfa55a 395bc297ffeb0b.jpg

[Alyosha]

Oh God...I don't deny you the right to do anything.

Yeah, I get it...there is antisemitism out there. I know full well. I've witnessed it with my step father who is Jewish. I've also listened to his parents recall the horrors of Auschwitz.

I think it's actually French for "Fuck you I can't control my anger".

But rather than avoid my question to you can you just like ...answer my question?

Okay, under yours proposed system how do I know I'm not giving my money to an antisemite, a homophobe, or a misogynist when I walk into a bakery or food service establishment?

[Alyosha]

Segregation was the actual law. I think that is sometimes overlooked. Of course that overlapped with personal prejudice but I have a hard time believing the system could have lasted if business owners coudl do as they pleased.

EVERYONE forgets that Jim Crow Laws were laws. They think it was businesses all as a giant hive doing it together. They also forget that it was the federal government that rounded up the Japanese and put them into camps.

They forget a lot of things that are inconvenient to their position.

[Common Sense]

But rather than avoid my question to you can you just like ...answer my question?

Okay, under yours proposed system how do I know I'm not giving my money to an antisemite, a homophobe, or a misogynist when I walk into a bakery or food service establishment?

How would you know even if they were allowed to discriminate? They could just allow you to come in so they could spit in your coffee.

It's a really silly reason to allow discrimination...

[Polecat]

Okay, under yours proposed system how do I know I'm not giving my money to a Jew, a faggot, or a Catholic when I walk into a bakery or food service establishment?


Hate the haters is not sound judgement and you need to understand this.

[Mister D]

EVERYONE forgets that Jim Crow Laws were laws. They think it was businesses all as a giant hive doing it together. They also forget that it was the federal government that rounded up the Japanese and put them into camps.

They forget a lot of things that are inconvenient to their position.

It is somewhat amusing how they appeal to the law which is pretty much what their segregationist counterparts did.

[Alyosha]

How would you know even if they were allowed to discriminate?

The sign in the window that says things like "Big Earl's Bait Shop Refuses Service to Fags" and shit like that.




They could just allow you to come in so they could spit in your coffee.

That's pretty Machiavellian. I'd have to say, "Well played, Nazi. Well played."




It's a really silly reason to allow discrimination...

You can't disallow discrimination. It's still going to happen, it will just happen in secret. Unlike you I'd rather know upfront who hates me and never give them a dime of my Jew money.

You want them to have my money so that people can pretend that these things don't exist. Letting that kid believe that the man serving him is a nice person is bullshit. That kid you mentioned should know what monsters exist and should have the option of eating someone not run by colossal dickwads.

[Common Sense]

The sign in the window that says things like "Big Earl's Bait Shop Refuses Service to Fags" and shit like that.



That's pretty Machiavellian. I'd have to say, "Well played, Nazi. Well played."



You can't disallow discrimination. It's still going to happen, it will just happen in secret. Unlike you I'd rather know upfront who hates me and never give them a dime of my Jew money.

You want them to have my money so that people can pretend that these things don't exist. Letting that kid believe that the man serving him is a nice person is bullshit. That kid you mentioned should know what monsters exist and should have the option of eating someone not run by colossal dickwads.

Yeah, like they would put a sign in the window.

If you're eating at Big Earl's Bait Shop, discrimination is the least of your worries.

[Mister D]

Okay, under yours proposed system how do I know I'm not giving my money to a Jew, a $#@!, or a Catholic when I walk into a bakery or food service establishment?


Hate the haters is not sound judgement and you need to understand this.

I ask for a DNA test before any services are rendered.

[Chris]

Rand Paul got into big trouble with liberals over this, saying that while he abhorred discrimination, he believed a private business had the right to discriminate. I'd agree with him.

[Alyosha]

Yeah, like they would put a sign in the window.

That was a real sign, so, yes. If you are really a hater you will put up a sign, refuse service, etc. I will know or you don't hate me that much.

My point is if you tell me you don't serve my kind I don't want you to. In fact, I not only don't want you to, but I'm glad you won't get my money. That's honest. I may even tell others not to go to you. What I don't want to be is that person they were forced to serve food to that they don't want to serve food to.

If you think that people don't fuck with people in the food service industry I suggest you go to Youtube.

I am always upfront and prefer things that way. If I like you, you know it. If I do not, you know it. Everything is upfront.

[Polecat]

Rand Paul got into big trouble with liberals over this, saying that while he abhorred discrimination, he believed a private business had the right to discriminate. I'd agree with him.

God gave us freedom of choice. We can choose for ourselves whether or not to serve evil or good. Having the right to hate does not protect you from the self inflicted damage of hating.

[Alyosha]

I actually cannot even believe that I have to have these conversations. Who is so pathetic that they feel it is a victory to force a bigot to serve them rather than force the bigot out of business?

I can't even imagine that logic in their heads.

"I just forced that Neonazi to run my debit card for $10's and he was so impressed that I could force him to do it that he made my milkshake extra creamy!"

[Green Arrow]

Yeah, like they would put a sign in the window.

If you're eating at Big Earl's Bait Shop, discrimination is the least of your worries.

They wouldn't?

http://nysiaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/whites-only.png

[Mister D]

Rand Paul got into big trouble with liberals over this, saying that while he abhorred discrimination, he believed a private business had the right to discriminate. I'd agree with him.

In trying to explain the libertarian position to progressives I often heard the following: (paraphrased) "why would someone approve of discrimination if they weren't racists?" I'm thinking, did you not listen to a word I said?

[Mister D]

They wouldn't?

http://nysiaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/whites-only.png

That's a nice piece for the man cave. Fo sho. :afro:

[Common Sense]

They wouldn't?

http://nysiaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/whites-only.png

Yes, I understand that they have done that in the past. My point was that someone who wanted to spit in whomever they hated's coffee, wouldn't put up a sign.

I just think that if you create a culture that allows bigotry openly, you're sending a bad message.

Bigotry shouldn't be acceptable and people should be free to frequent any public establishment.

[Common Sense]

We should allow child pornography so we can spot the potential child molesters. That's basically the gist of it...

[Mister D]

Yes, I understand that they have done that in the past. My point was that someone who wanted to spit in whomever they hated's coffee, wouldn't put up a sign.

I just think that if you create a culture that allows bigotry openly, you're sending a bad message.

Bigotry shouldn't be acceptable and people should be free to frequent any public establishment.


We should allow child pornography so we can spot the potential child molesters. That's basically the gist of it...

Wow. Just wow. Thank you for that insight into your thought process, dude.

[Common Sense]

Wow. Just wow. Thank you for that insight into your thought process, dude.

Yeah, no problem...but it's actually Aloysha's reasoning.

[Mister D]

Yeah, no problem...but it's actually Aloysha's reasoning.

No, it's yours and it's pretty disturbing.

[Green Arrow]

Common Sense, I presented my reasoning for why I, as a gay man, do not want to patronize a business that hates gay people. I don't want to give them my money. Forcing them to serve me means I'm making a bigot rich with my money. How does that make sense? Please explain it to me.

[Alyosha]

Yes, I understand that they have done that in the past. My point was that someone who wanted to spit in whomever they hated's coffee, wouldn't put up a sign.

They don't need a law to discriminate either but you think it will prevent it. They can just do it tacitly. What businesses do say is, "We'd prefer not to serve you". Right there you know your business is unwanted and your money unwelcome and you can go give it to someone who wants it.

Instead you want to force it on them so that they're already pissed off and willing to be aggressive in clandestine ways.

Even Cigar who agrees with these laws actually said if forced he'd just do a shitty job.

Tell me, why you think someone who doesn't want to serve gays when forced to do so will do a good job?

I want to know why you think that.




I just think that if you create a culture that allows bigotry openly, you're sending a bad message.


There is a difference between legal and allowing. I can show my dislike for behavior without a law.


Bigotry shouldn't be acceptable and people should be free to frequent any public establishment.

While I agree bigotry should not be acceptable to people of good faith and virtue, I hesitate over the word "public". To me "public" means my tax dollars help to maintain it. If you mean a business that someone started with their own sweat and money then that's private property and the owner has a right to refuse me under all reasonable natural law.

In NY in order to hold a license I had requirements that I felt prevented my moral conscience from being free to make a decision about my clients. I had to choose between my livelihood and my heart many times. While this is not the same thing, I don't believe that it is the government's place as it uses force.

The market is democratic. The choice it makes is fair. Just as Cultcrusher could deny me service for being a Jew, I could say "Fuck you I don't want your cake" and then go on a social media campaign to put him out of business.

[Common Sense]

No, it's yours and it's pretty disturbing.

I agree it's disturbing...but Aloysha wants people to be able to publicly discriminate so she can spot your ilk and not shop there. Why not apply her logic to other avenues?

[Chris]

God gave us freedom of choice. We can choose for ourselves whether or not to serve evil or good. Having the right to hate does not protect you from the self inflicted damage of hating.

Exactly. It's the only moral solution, the freedom to choose to act morally or not.

[Common Sense]

They don't need a law to discriminate either but you think it will prevent it. They can just do it tacitly. What businesses do say is, "We'd prefer not to serve you". Right there you know your business is unwanted and your money unwelcome and you can go give it to someone who wants it.

Instead you want to force it on them so that they're already pissed off and willing to be aggressive in clandestine ways.

Even Cigar who agrees with these laws actually said if forced he'd just do a shitty job.

Tell me, why you think someone who doesn't want to serve gays when forced to do so will do a good job?

I want to know why you think that.



There is a difference between legal and allowing. I can show my dislike for behavior without a law.



While I agree bigotry should not be acceptable to people of good faith and virtue, I hesitate over the word "public". To me "public" means my tax dollars help to maintain it. If you mean a business that someone started with their own sweat and money then that's private property and the owner has a right to refuse me under all reasonable natural law.

In NY in order to hold a license I had requirements that I felt prevented my moral conscience from being free to make a decision about my clients. I had to choose between my livelihood and my heart many times. While this is not the same thing, I don't believe that it is the government's place as it uses force.

The market is democratic. The choice it makes is fair. Just as Cultcrusher could deny me service for being a Jew, I could say "Fuck you I don't want your cake" and then go on a social media campaign to put him out of business.

It's my opinion that all public establishments should be open to all the public. That's really it.

I think allowing discrimination only encourages and perpetuates discrimination. The reality is we're not just talking about this hypothetical mom and pop operation. We're talking about health insurance, purchasing property, renting an apartment, going golfing, joining a gym, getting your car fixed etc...

[Common Sense]

@Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085), I presented my reasoning for why I, as a gay man, do not want to patronize a business that hates gay people. I don't want to give them my money. Forcing them to serve me means I'm making a bigot rich with my money. How does that make sense? Please explain it to me.

You're not forced to go there.

[Mister D]

I agree it's disturbing...but Aloysha wants people to be able to publicly discriminate so she can spot your ilk and not shop there. Why not apply her logic to other avenues?

Sorry, but that's a heck of a lot less crazy than criminalizing views we dislike.


I just think that if you create a culture that allows bigotry openly, you're sending a bad message.

[Chris]

In trying to explain the libertarian position to progressives I often heard the following: (paraphrased) "why would someone approve of discrimination if they weren't racists?" I'm thinking, did you not listen to a word I said?

Exactly.

I don't see it as a libertarian position so much as a moral one. If we're not, as polecat says, free to choose between good and evil, then we are not making moral choices.

[Common Sense]

Sorry, but that's a heck of a lot less crazy than criminalizing views we dislike.

I'm not for criminalizing views. People are free to whatever view they like.

Using those views to perpetuate hate is a different matter...

[Chris]

It's my opinion that all public establishments should be open to all the public. That's really it.

I think allowing discrimination only encourages and perpetuates discrimination. The reality is we're not just talking about this hypothetical mom and pop operation. We're talking about health insurance, purchasing property, renting an apartment, going golfing, joining a gym, getting your car fixed etc...



And you would force your prejudicial preferences on all?

[Common Sense]

And you would force your prejudicial preferences on all?

LOL...being against bigotry is a "prejudicial preference" now?

[Common Sense]

Sometimes this place makes me sort of sad for humanity.

[Mister D]

LOL...being against bigotry is a "prejudicial preference" now?

What else could it possibly be?

[Green Arrow]

You're not forced to go there.

No, I'm not, but I also don't know where I'm going. Remember the big stink about Chick-fil-A? If they hadn't said what they did that started the firestorm, everyone that disagreed with them wouldn't have known. Everyone would continue giving them money and making them rich.

Anyway, you still didn't answer my question.

[Common Sense]

What else could it possibly be?

Equality?

[Mister D]

I'm not for criminalizing views. People are free to whatever view they like.

Using those views to perpetuate hate is a different matter...

lol you just said " just think that if you create a culture that allows bigotry openly, you're sending a bad message."

It's a shame you can't actually persuade anyone with argument and logic. As usual, you fall back on the law. Of course if that law changes then you will do a 180.

[Common Sense]

No, I'm not, but I also don't know where I'm going. Remember the big stink about Chick-fil-A? If they hadn't said what they did that started the firestorm, everyone that disagreed with them wouldn't have known. Everyone would continue giving them money and making them rich.

Anyway, you still didn't answer my question.

They still served gays but you were very much aware of their feelings.

I did answer your question.

[Mister D]

Equality?

You have an equal right to someone else's property? tell us more!

[Green Arrow]

They still served gays but you were very much aware of their feelings.

No, I wasn't. Not until it came out that they donate to Exodus International.


I did answer your question.

No, you didn't. I asked you how it makes sense to punish bigots by making them richer. "You're not forced to shop there" completely misses the point and ignores the question.

[Polecat]

LOL...being against bigotry is a "prejudicial preference" now?

Actually you just hit the nail on the head. I am against____________. No matter what word you put in the blank it says you are discriminating.

[Common Sense]

lol you just said " just think that if you create a culture that allows bigotry openly, you're sending a bad message."

It's a shame you can't actually persuade anyone with argument and logic. As usual, you fall back on the law. Of course if that law changes then you will do a 180.

LOL...well I know I can't persuade someone like you. Your feelings are quite clear.

My opinion is that saying all businesses are free to not serve people based on the color of their skin, their religion or their sexual orientation only serves to perpetuate bigotry. It only gets passed on to future generations as it clearly has been before. Luckily the western world is changing and less and less people feel the way you do.

[Common Sense]

Actually you just hit the nail on the head. I am against____________. No matter what word you put in the blank it says you are discriminating.

That's silly. I'm against murder...I'm discriminating against murderers? I'm against a behavior, not something that someone has no choice of. People don't choose the color of their skin any more than they choose their sexuality. Come on...

[Mister D]

LOL...well I know I can't persuade someone like you. Your feelings are quite clear.

My opinion is that saying all businesses are free to not serve people based on the color of their skin, their religion or their sexual orientation only serves to perpetuate bigotry. It only gets passed on to future generations as it clearly has been before. Luckily the western world is changing and less and less people feel the way you do.

Give it a try...for once.

So what? lol Again, you support criminalizing views you dislike. Understood.

Oh, but Europe is in for some changes, Sense. :grin: Canada never mattered so whatever...

[nic34]

When one opens a business and gets special privileges and perks from the government such as tax write offs and limited liability protections... then their religious/political beliefs can play NO role in who they can serve.


Screw 'em. If they want freedom of association to match their bigotry... they can form private clubs.

That goes for pharmacists and religious hospitals who don't want to deal with contraceptives.

[Mister D]

Then again, Canada's laws are a reflection of how the state feels about the white population. :wink:

[Alyosha]

I agree it's disturbing...but Aloysha wants people to be able to publicly discriminate so she can spot your ilk and not shop there. Why not apply her logic to other avenues?

Probably because Alyosha believes that most people aren't pieces of shit and will not discriminate and further assist in the public condemnation of bigots. It's funny that I believe in humanity more than a progressive.

[Common Sense]

No, I wasn't. Not until it came out that they donate to Exodus International.



No, you didn't. I asked you how it makes sense to punish bigots by making them richer. "You're not forced to shop there" completely misses the point and ignores the question.

How does it make them richer if you don't shop there?

I get the sense that some think just because a store or a business makes it's feelings clear that they don't want to serve gays, the invisible hand will save us all by putting that business out of business. Unfortunately that isn't true. Chick Filet is a good example of that.

[Mister D]

Probably because Alyosha believes that most people aren't pieces of $#@! and will not discriminate and further assist in the public condemnation of bigots. It's funny that I believe in humanity more than a progressive.

I was just thinking about how Canada's laws reflect the contempt progressives have for Canadians.

[Alyosha]

When one opens a business and gets special privileges and perks from the government such as tax write offs and limited liability protections... then their religious/political beliefs can play NO role in who they can serve.


Screw 'em. If they want freedom of association to match their bigotry... they can form private clubs.

That goes for pharmacists and religious hospitals who don't want to deal with contraceptives.

They shouldn't get any of those things, either. Why should a business receive special benefits?

[Common Sense]

Probably because Alyosha believes that most people aren't pieces of shit and will not discriminate and further assist in the public condemnation of bigots. It's funny that I believe in humanity more than a progressive.

As I was saying...your faith is misguided. Chick Fil A does quite well and their feelings are well known.

[Green Arrow]

How does it make them richer if you don't shop there?

How can I choose not to shop there if I don't know of any reason not to?


I get the sense that some think just because a store or a business makes it's feelings clear that they don't want to serve gays, the invisible hand will save us all by putting that business out of business. Unfortunately that isn't true. Chick Filet is a good example of that.

I don't know what this "invisible hand" you keep referencing even is. I just know a lot of pissed off people of various races, religions, political ideologies, sexual orientations, genders, etc. that would put them out of business pretty quick.

[Common Sense]

I was just thinking about how Canada's laws reflect the contempt progressives have for Canadians.

Huh?

[Alyosha]

How does it make them richer if you don't shop there?

I get the sense that some think just because a store or a business makes it's feelings clear that they don't want to serve gays, the invisible hand will save us all by putting that business out of business. Unfortunately that isn't true. Chick Filet is a good example of that.

Chic Filet served gays, hired gays and no gay who ever ate there or worked there had any issue with their employment and said that.

The owner of the company made a donation to Exodus international. Would you like to pick a company that actually discriminated and let's talk about that?

[Alyosha]

As I was saying...your faith is misguided. Chick Fil A does quite well and their feelings are well known.

Maybe you're confused about Chick Fil A or something. You know they hired gay people, correct? You know that they served gay people, correct?

[Bob]

Yeah, I don't buy this invisible hand bullshit.

If I have to travel out of my way because a certain store or restaurant doesn't want to serve my kind...then that's bullshit. How do you think a kid would feel if all his friends could go into an establishment but they weren't welcome?

You can kick someone out of your business, but not because of their sexual orientation, color or gender. At least in a civilized nation you can't.

They don't need to tell me their sexual orientation or color or gender.

What would you do it your waitress, who is totally non prejudiced,brought the family from hell to set at the table next to you? They are loud, stink the place out and are smoking.

Do you then reject them?

[Green Arrow]

Alyosha, I think it's my fault. I brought up Chick-fil-A to use as an example because I figured it was one he would recognize and couldn't think of anything else.

[Common Sense]

How can I choose not to shop there if I don't know of any reason not to?



I don't know what this "invisible hand" you keep referencing even is. I just know a lot of pissed off people of various races, religions, political ideologies, sexual orientations, genders, etc. that would put them out of business pretty quick.

Really, them explain how Chick Fil A is still in business...

[Green Arrow]

Really, them explain how Chick Fil A is still in business...

Because gay people like me thought the way they were treated was ridiculous and joined their Christian and non-Christian allies in patronizing their business.

Why are you still refusing to answer my question?

[Mister D]

Huh?

try to keep up

[Common Sense]

They don't need to tell me their sexual orientation or color or gender.

What would you do it your waitress, who is totally non prejudiced,brought the family from hell to set at the table next to you? They are loud, stink the place out and are smoking.

Do you then reject them?

People can be rejected. In my opinion people can't be rejected because of the color of their skin, religion or sexual orientation. Do you see the difference?

[Common Sense]

try to keep up

Your inference was ambiguous.

[Mister D]

Because gay people like me thought the way they were treated was ridiculous and joined their Christian and non-Christian allies in patronizing their business.

Why are you still refusing to answer my question?

Good man. I would never eat there because they probably abuse their chickens like Popeye's Codename Section but you did a good thing.

[Bob]

People can be rejected. In my opinion people can't be rejected because of the color of their skin, religion or sexual orientation. Do you see the difference?

I have lived under that law since the 60s I believe. I got used to it.

[Common Sense]

Because gay people like me thought the way they were treated was ridiculous and joined their Christian and non-Christian allies in patronizing their business.

Why are you still refusing to answer my question?

...and yet their they are still in business. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen. I thought if businesses were deemed prejudiced people would just stop frequenting them.

Can you reiterate your question? I feel I have answered it.

[Cigar]

Leave them a Hot Steamy Thank You on their Front Door every morning. :grin:

[Alyosha]

I should also mention that Nazis should have a right to eat at a Nazi diner, no differently than I should have a right to eat at a anti-Nazi diner if I want.

This whole "but everyone has to be nice OR ELSE" shit is just irony in the extreme. You cannot cure a social ill with government force. These laws to stop bigotry have not done it. Drug laws don't stop people from shooting up heroin. Anti-sodomy laws never stopped sodomy.

What people want is to feel good that they are on the side of "nice" or "public good". They know deep down they don't solve the problem but they want to pretend like they've done something. That's why they always bring children into the discussion.

What about the child that sees the no Jew sign?????

If that were Eth and I's child, we'd walk him up to the sign and say "Honey, a bunch of assholes own this place. Now, get back in the Rover and lets go spend some of our dirty Jew money elsewhere."

[Polecat]

Maybe you're confused about Chick Fil A or something. You know they hired gay people, correct? You know that they served gay people, correct?

Exactly. You can object to a principle without brutalizing those that accept it. That is what I have been going about. It is no more noble to hate someone because they hate you than it is to hate them for being purple.

[Mister D]

...and yet their they are still in business. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen. I thought if businesses were deemed prejudiced people would just stop frequenting them.

Can you reiterate your question? I feel I have answered it.

sigh...


THEY DON'T DISCRIMINATE, GENIUS. It's a poor example.

[Alyosha]

...and yet their they are still in business. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen. I thought if businesses were deemed prejudiced people would just stop frequenting them.

Can you reiterate your question? I feel I have answered it.

Common Sense

do you think that Chick Fil A discriminated in hiring or service? I keep asking you because you seem confused and believe they did.

[Common Sense]

I should also mention that Nazis should have a right to eat at a Nazi diner, no differently than I should have a right to eat at a anti-Nazi diner if I want.

This whole "but everyone has to be nice OR ELSE" shit is just irony in the extreme. You cannot cure a social ill with government force. These laws to stop bigotry have not done it. Drug laws don't stop people from shooting up heroin. Anti-sodomy laws never stopped sodomy.

What people want is to feel good that they are on the side of "nice" or "public good". They know deep down they don't solve the problem but they want to pretend like they've done something. That's why they always bring children into the discussion.

What about the child that sees the no Jew sign?????

If that were Eth and I's child, we'd walk him up to the sign and say "Honey, a bunch of assholes own this place. Now, get back in the Rover and lets go spend some of our dirty Jew money elsewhere."

The US shouldn't have legally ended slavery...it would probably just sort itself out.

[Green Arrow]

...and yet their they are still in business. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen. I thought if businesses were deemed prejudiced people would just stop frequenting them.

Can you reiterate your question? I feel I have answered it.

Chick-fil-A was not deemed prejudiced because it turns out they serve and hire gay people and none of those gay people that were served or hired were treated wrongly. I had the same problem as you until I found that out, then I was just like eh, I can overlook the Exodus International donation. What matters is how they treat the people and they treated the people fine.

My question was, again: How does it make sense to punish bigots by forcing them to make more money?

[Green Arrow]

The US shouldn't have legally ended slavery...it would probably just sort itself out.

It actually was sorting itself out and the US government never officially ended slavery. But that's a discussion for another thread.

[nathanbforrest45]

When a business denies you service the proper thing to do is to get a few of your friends and firebomb the neighborhood and burn down every business on the block. You should then riot and loot to your hearts content.

[Common Sense]

@Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085)

do you think that Chick Fil A discriminated in hiring or service? I keep asking you because you seem confused and believe they did.

I never said they did. I said their views were well known.

[Cigar]

Don't Get Mad; Get Even :laugh:

It's way more Fun. :grin:

[Cigar]

When a business denies you service the proper thing to do is to get a few of your friends and firebomb the neighborhood and burn down every business on the block. You should then riot and loot to your hearts content.

Then take their Women out on a Date :afro:

[Common Sense]

Chick-fil-A was not deemed prejudiced because it turns out they serve and hire gay people and none of those gay people that were served or hired were treated wrongly. I had the same problem as you until I found that out, then I was just like eh, I can overlook the Exodus International donation. What matters is how they treat the people and they treated the people fine.

My question was, again: How does it make sense to punish bigots by forcing them to make more money?

It's not rewarding them. It's only making them operate like any other business. It doesn't mean they are going to make more money.

It only means that anyone is free to use their business.

[Polecat]

Chick-fil-A was not deemed prejudiced because it turns out they serve and hire gay people and none of those gay people that were served or hired were treated wrongly. I had the same problem as you until I found that out, then I was just like eh, I can overlook the Exodus International donation. What matters is how they treat the people and they treated the people fine.

My question was, again: How does it make sense to punish bigots by forcing them to make more money?

How does it make sense to punish them at all? They are already punishing themselves. Do you run up and kick a fellow when he's lying in a clump on the street?

[Common Sense]

It actually was sorting itself out and the US government never officially ended slavery. But that's a discussion for another thread.

LOL...yes, it was just going to work out great.

[Alyosha]

I never said they did. I said their views were well known.

The owner's views that gays can be converted? Or the owner's views that gays deserve God's love and support?

It was an ambiguous argument about Chick Fil A, however you know that once people protested and told them that the organization made them feel hurt they actually stopped donating?

Did you know that Common Sense

Further, they had pro-Chick Fil A protesters that made up the expense of the protest and in the end Chick Fil A did the right thing because they listened to gay people and changed their mind without it hitting their pockets.

Do they get no credit in your book for that?

[Polecat]

The US shouldn't have legally ended slavery...it would probably just sort itself out.

Slavery still exists. Always has and always will.

[Bob]

It's not rewarding them. It's only making them operate like any other business. It doesn't mean they are going to make more money.

It only means that anyone is free to use their business.

I saw a Chick Fil A the other day. Maybe I need to buy some of their chicken.

[Chris]

Equality?

Because we're all different, equality implies taking from some to give to others according, I suppose, to your sense of fairness, your prejudicial preferences. That's discrimination.

[Green Arrow]

LOL...yes, it was just going to work out great.

Uhm, do you not know anything about American history? Almost one million Americans died in a civil war and the nation was almost irrevocably torn apart, and for one hundred years after all of that non-whites and weird whites like Italians and Irish were killed, abused, and all around treated like second class citizens and that was just what the US government did to them.

So I don't see where it worked out so great the way it happened either.

[Common Sense]

Because we're all different, equality implies taking from some to give to others according, I suppose, to your sense of fairness, your prejudicial preferences. That's discrimination.

Equality in the sense that all are allowed to use a public business.

It's not discrimination in any way shape or form.

[Green Arrow]

It's not rewarding them. It's only making them operate like any other business. It doesn't mean they are going to make more money.

It only means that anyone is free to use their business.

When you do math, if you were making $1 from twenty people and now can make $1 from fifty people, you're making more money.

[Green Arrow]

How does it make sense to punish them at all? They are already punishing themselves. Do you run up and kick a fellow when he's lying in a clump on the street?

If he's an asshole? Absolutely.

[Cigar]

The US shouldn't have legally ended slavery...it would probably just sort itself out.

I know it would now ... :laugh:

[Common Sense]

Uhm, do you not know anything about American history? Almost one million Americans died in a civil war and the nation was almost irrevocably torn apart, and for one hundred years after all of that non-whites and weird whites like Italians and Irish were killed, abused, and all around treated like second class citizens and that was just what the US government did to them.

So I don't see where it worked out so great the way it happened either.

No shit...but your insinuation that slavery just would have ended is one of the more ridiculous things I've read today.

[Alyosha]

It's not rewarding them. It's only making them operate like any other business. It doesn't mean they are going to make more money.

It only means that anyone is free to use their business.


Over and over these businesses are forced to perform the service after saying "no" and they are paid for it. That means they are rewarded with the money. Meanwhile the person who WANTED the business is not.

That's some fucked up shit.

And you don't "use" someone's business. They sell you a product or service. You use a piece of equipment. Without mutual agreement and voluntary exchange that's force and force is always immoral. You may have succeeded in forcing the bigot's hand but you became immoral in the process.

Big win there.

[Common Sense]

Anyways...I can't answer all of you. I'm leaving this ridiculous conversion for now.

The snow isn't going to clear itself.

[Green Arrow]

No shit...but your insinuation that slavery just would have ended is one of the more ridiculous things I've read today.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbnir5Jq1D1qabynso1_500.gif

Facts are facts, bro, regardless of what you think of them. And it wouldn't have "just ended," there would have been perfectly logical reasons for it...like there were.

[Polecat]

If he's an asshole? Absolutely.

That is exactly the same thing as saying you would run up and kick him for being gay. When you can understand what I mean then I have not wasted my time here.

[nathanbforrest45]

Actually, I fully support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are those who would say the law has no right to interfere with my business but there were many businesses that acted the way they did because of the culture of the area. My father in law owned a restaurant. He wanted as much business as he could get but could not serve African Americans at the time because he would have lost his white business, which was much greater. The law allowed him to serve whoever he wanted to serve without worrying what his other customers thought since it was THE LAW and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I think that law did more to change racial relations than anything else, and it was for the good.

Question however, A group of black youth's enter your business, mf'ing every other word and generally being obnoxious. So you refuse to serve them. Are you now discriminating on the basis of race? keep in mind many in the black community think that language is perfectly acceptable.

[Alyosha]

No shit...but your insinuation that slavery just would have ended is one of the more ridiculous things I've read today.

First of all if the war was over slavery and not over keeping the union together I would have had less issue with it. It was not over slavery. Ending slavery is a good reason for war.

Too bad that wasn't Lincolns.

[Alyosha]

Actually, I fully support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are those who would say the law has no right to interfere with my business but there were many businesses that acted the way they did because of the culture of the area. My father in law owned a restaurant. He wanted as much business as he could get but could not serve African Americans at the time because he would have lost his white business, which was much greater. The law allowed him to serve whoever he wanted to serve without worrying what his other customers thought since it was THE LAW and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I think that law did more to change racial relations than anything else, and it was for the good.

Question however, A group of black youth's enter your business, mf'ing every other word and generally being obnoxious. So you refuse to serve them. Are you now discriminating on the basis of race? keep in mind many in the black community think that language is perfectly acceptable.

Common Sense

see above. Jim Crow laws were laws.

[Green Arrow]

I wouldn't refuse to serve them, but I would ask them to please show a little respect and decorum. And if they can't handle that, I'd ask them to leave.

[nic34]

They shouldn't get any of those things, either. Why should a business receive special benefits?

Happens all the time, especially big businesses.

Businesses that enjoy the benefits of the commons should also be willing to play by the same rules that allow for that infrastructure.

[Polecat]

Over and over these businesses are forced to perform the service after saying "no" and they are paid for it. That means they are rewarded with the money. Meanwhile the person who WANTED the business is not.

That's some fucked up shit.

And you don't "use" someone's business. They sell you a product or service. You use a piece of equipment. Without mutual agreement and voluntary exchange that's force and force is always immoral. You may have succeeded in forcing the bigot's hand but you became immoral in the process.

Big win there.

Receiving money is not automatically a reward. This is your Joo blood talking. If you are forced to service men but are well payed is it still a "reward"?

[Common Sense]

@Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085)

see above. Jim Crow laws were laws.

You're not understanding what Nathan said.

Boots on...gotta go.

[Alyosha]

Happens all the time, especially big businesses.

Businesses that enjoy the benefits of the commons should also be willing to play by the same rules that allow for that infrastructure.

Right but I don't think they should is my point. I am a 15% flat tax across the board on everything, regardless of whether you call it salary, dividends, profit, etc.

[Safety]

Yeah, I don't buy this invisible hand bullshit.

If I have to travel out of my way because a certain store or restaurant doesn't want to serve my kind...then that's bullshit. How do you think a kid would feel if all his friends could go into an establishment but they weren't welcome?

You can kick someone out of your business, but not because of their sexual orientation, color or gender. At least in a civilized nation you can't.

I guess some will never understand how it affects a person to be treated like a 2nd class citizen. Growing up on a cattle farm I went with my father to the market to sell and buy cows. We grew up in a small farming town in Georgia. Now there was a local stockyard in town, but for some reason my father would always drive to S.C. to go to the stockyard there. One day I asked him why are we driving 45 minutes away when there was a market in town. He said one time before I was born he was there to buy some cows, and every time he raised his hand to bid, the auctioneer would look the other way and not acknowledge him, even after making eye contact. He said he tried to bid on three different cows, and every time he was ignored but the men around him were "noticed" just fine. He said after that day, he would never set foot in that facility again unless it was under new ownership. So, while it's all true to say "Just go to another business that wants your money", or "you're just making the people who hate you rich", I think it is bullshit.

[Common]

As aloysha described people are capable of anything. When youre forcing them to do what they do not want to do, that brings out the worst.

If a baker didnt want to make me a wedding cake because I was a italian and he hates italians, my view would be stick your cake up your arse and id go find a bakery to bake my cake.

[Green Arrow]

I guess some will never understand how it affects a person to be treated like a 2nd class citizen.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbhsx2bxMQ1ror6v2.gif

[Chris]

Equality in the sense that all are allowed to use a public business.

It's not discrimination in any way shape or form.

What's public are, or ought to be, limited to government facilities and services. A business is private.

[Safety]

Actually, I fully support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are those who would say the law has no right to interfere with my business but there were many businesses that acted the way they did because of the culture of the area. My father in law owned a restaurant. He wanted as much business as he could get but could not serve African Americans at the time because he would have lost his white business, which was much greater. The law allowed him to serve whoever he wanted to serve without worrying what his other customers thought since it was THE LAW and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I think that law did more to change racial relations than anything else, and it was for the good.

Question however, A group of black youth's enter your business, mf'ing every other word and generally being obnoxious. So you refuse to serve them. Are you now discriminating on the basis of race? keep in mind many in the black community think that language is perfectly acceptable.

Easy question. You kick them out for using foul language. Skin color makes no difference, unless you are saying if they were white you would still serve them. For if that was the case, then you're in the wrong.

[Chris]

Happens all the time, especially big businesses.

Businesses that enjoy the benefits of the commons should also be willing to play by the same rules that allow for that infrastructure.


Oh noes, not the commons again!!! :grin:

[nic34]

What's public are, or ought to be, limited to government facilities and services. A business is private.

Then that business should not receive any government benefit.

[Green Arrow]

Then that business should not receive any government benefit.

I don't think any businesses should have government benefits anyway.

[nic34]

I don't think any businesses should have government benefits anyway.

Including the right to sue in govt courts?

[Common Sense]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbhsx2bxMQ1ror6v2.gif

I'm sorry, but you've become sort of a dick lately.

You were the first poster I respected here. Something has changed.

[Chris]

Then that business should not receive any government benefit.

No one should.

[Common Sense]

What's public are, or ought to be, limited to government facilities and services. A business is private.

Yet a business uses public infrastructure.

If a business is open to the public, it should be open to all the public.

[Polecat]

Now here's one Safety might like. The slave auctioneer posted a sign that read: WE SERVE BLACKS:drumdude:

[Green Arrow]

I'm sorry, but you've become sort of a dick lately.

You were the first poster I respected here. Something has changed.

What dickish things have I done, exactly?

[Green Arrow]

Including the right to sue in govt courts?

What other courts would they sue in?

[Alyosha]

I think I'm just too angry of a person to wait on the government. If someone didn't serve gays, Jews, blacks, etc I wouldn't depend on a law I'd surround the place.

[Safety]

Now here's one Safety might like. The slave auctioneer posted a sign that read: WE SERVE BLACKS:drumdude:

LoL, that was good. I bet they're not working for tips either.

[Bob]

Yet a business uses public infrastructure.

If a business is open to the public, it should be open to all the public.

And you won't mind when the waitress parks a nasty smelling, rude and cursing person next to your table?

[Safety]

I think I'm just too angry of a person to wait on the government. If someone didn't serve gays, Jews, blacks, etc I wouldn't depend on a law I'd surround the place.

Well, look how Ferguson turned out....

[Polecat]

LoL, that was good. I bet they're not working for tips either.

I've taken a shine to you. Glad you know I am just funin with you.

[Polecat]

I think I'm just too angry of a person to wait on the government. If someone didn't serve gays, Jews, blacks, etc I wouldn't depend on a law I'd surround the place.

Getting mad is human. Staying mad is the inability to forgive.

[Alyosha]

Well, look how Ferguson turned out....

Yeh, but I was the one arguing that they should have done more of it, if you recall. It's another reason I'm so disliked on here. :)

[Safety]

And you won't mind when the waitress parks a nasty smelling, rude and cursing person next to your table?

Kinda like this, Bob?


http://youtu.be/Ku33Th6aygw

[Chris]

Yet a business uses public infrastructure.

If a business is open to the public, it should be open to all the public.

The public infrastructure is open to all.

You're playing on a turn of phrase, open to public, to conflate public and private.

[Alyosha]

Getting mad is human. Staying mad is the inability to forgive.

I would totally forgive them once they served Jews, blacks, and gays and gave me a discount. Discounts always change my mind. I love a good discount, huh Mister D ?

[Common Sense]

Yeh, but I was the one arguing that they should have done more of it, if you recall. It's another reason I'm so disliked on here. :)

You're not disliked here.

There are members who are...you are not one of them.

[nic34]

What other courts would they sue in?

None. That's my point.

You're on your own. Sink or swim.

[Polecat]

Kinda like this, Bob?


http://youtu.be/Ku33Th6aygw

Sweet.

[del]

Or he could just piss in your twinkie batter anyway and not bitch about denying you service if he really hates you.

I'm really neither here nor there on this matter because I think it's a privileged issue. As a white male I am not privileged. Because I'm not gay, a woman, a minority, a non-christian, etc. I have no fucks to give on the matter because nobody denies me services except those people who know I'm an asshole.

So I don't care either way. I do love the schadenfreund that I experience when some bigoted fuck group gets run through the ringer because of their petty bigotry.

Karma has a funny way of catching up.


:rofl:

good one

[nic34]

The public infrastructure is open to all.

You're playing on a turn of phrase, open to public, to conflate public and private.

The public infrastructure is open to all.

And paid for with taxes. Collected by the government.

[Alyosha]

You're not disliked here.

There are members who are...you are not one of them.

You must have been away for the Great Disliking.

[Common Sense]

:rofl:

good one

Yeah, I liked that one too.

[Common Sense]

You must have been away for the Great Disliking.

Must have.

[Polecat]

I would totally forgive them once they served Jews, blacks, and gays and gave me a discount. Discounts always change my mind. I love a good discount, huh @Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4) ?

LOL! The best ethnic humor always comes straight from the target.

[Chris]

The public infrastructure is open to all.

And paid for with taxes. Collected by the government.

Yes, so? No one's stopping anyone from using public streets.

[Safety]

I've taken a shine to you. Glad you know I am just funin with you.

I have a pretty good idea who means what they post and who are just joking.

[Chris]

None. That's my point.

You're on your own. Sink or swim.

So much for liberty when government has a coercive monopoly on law and justice.

[Bob]

I think I'm just too angry of a person to wait on the government. If someone didn't serve gays, Jews, blacks, etc I wouldn't depend on a law I'd surround the place.

You might be a bad-ass like my first wife was.

True story about Carole

I had a day off work and she had been laid off. She asked me to go with her to the unemployment office in Hayward, CA. She takes a number and we sat down. I am looking at a magazine after her number got called and suddenly she returns calling my name. I look up and she says, Bob... come with me. I get up and she wheels and heads for the woman sitting at her desk that had just talked to her. (turns out that she was a member of my church though at that moment, I did not realize it)

She wanted Carole to be more proactive hunting a job. Carole had managed a beauty shop. She was used to management. She got a 1 day per week offer as a beautician. She turned it down. The unemployment woman gave her hell. Carole says to her, since you want me to work so bad, hire me here at your office?

The woman blurts out, are you a college graduate. Carole had a temper. She rushed the woman with me following her and rips the woman by her hair over the desk. Throws her on the floor like a toy. Carole was not a tall or big woman. She was mean. By the time it all ended, and no, Carole did not get arrested, as I feared she would, the unemployment manager shows up and rules in her favor and gives her a check on the spot.

Alyosha, have you been in a real fight? My first wife loved a good fight. Man or woman, she would go after you.

I got a few good stories about that wild woman. LOL

[Alyosha]

I have been in many, Bob. I lived in the inner city of Detroit. It's why my nose is slightly to the left of the rest of my face.

[nic34]

Yes, so? No one's stopping anyone from using public streets.

Yep, they're just there. Free. They just appeared one day.

http://cocoalikesthis.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cocoalikesmagic.jpg

[Polecat]

So much for liberty when government has a coercive monopoly on law and justice.

Liberty was doomed the moment it was conceived. Our government became "privatized" almost immediately.

[del]

i'm only 4 pages into this and i have to say it's in the top 10 most retarded threads ever.

have a cookie

[Alyosha]

The government had a huge cookie sale outside of Walmart to pay for those sidewalks. Our income being taken had nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to build them.

So my tax dollars are taken to build a sidewalk for businesses rather than have them improve their own property, but the government hates business and loves "me".

[Chris]

Yep, they're just there. Free. They just appeared one day.

http://cocoalikesthis.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cocoalikesmagic.jpg


Do you even know what you're talking about? I don't.

[Chris]

Liberty was doomed the moment it was conceived. Our government became "privatized" almost immediately.

It's been a slow erosion. A slow leveling of equality over liberty.

[nic34]

The government had a huge cookie sale outside of Walmart to pay for those sidewalks. Our income being taken had nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to build them.

So my tax dollars are taken to build a sidewalk for businesses rather than have them improve their own property, but the government hates business and loves "me".

They didn't just pave YOUR sidewalk, they paved them for ALL of us.

You know, a road is no good if doesn't go anywhere and is just a patch outside your door.....

[Chris]

i'm only 4 pages into this and i have to say it's in the top 10 most retarded threads ever.

have a cookie



Yes, you're joining in has that effect sometimes.

[Common Sense]

It's been a slow erosion. A slow leveling of equality over liberty.

Yes, we're all so very oppressed.

[Peter1469]

He would probably be a little sad, I guess, but I would just tell him to get over it and stop being such a baby. I'm not trying to be harsh, that's just what I would say. I guess it's because I've had worse things happen to me than being excluded from some loser's store. I grew up with the expectation that Americans were rugged individuals who didn't run to the state every time they got their feelings hurt, that you were supposed to be tough and roll with the punches. I guess I'm just a dying breed.

That is sort of my position. Now I think that the laws were necessary are not necessary any more. But I certainly wouldn't go to the government if I was denied service. I would "Yelp" them to death and boycott their store. If they went bankrupt I would send them Christmas cards for a couple of years until I go bored with it.

What is really distasteful to me is the way a lot of these public examples of service denial were arraigned as planned stunts.

[Alyosha]

It all boils down to this, either you trust lawyers or you don't.

I'm one and I don't.

[Chris]

It all boils down to this, either you trust lawyers or you don't.

I'm one and I don't.


If we can't trust you, why who can we trust? Oh my!

[Polecat]

It all boils down to this, either you trust lawyers or you don't.

I'm one and I don't.
That is funny.

[Peter1469]

It all boils down to this, either you trust lawyers or you don't.

I'm one and I don't.

Yes, but you are a defense attorney. :shocked:

[Bob]

I have been in many, Bob. I lived in the inner city of Detroit. It's why my nose is slightly to the left of the rest of my face.

Carole was too fast for them to hit her. LOL

Thing about her was she was about 5-2 and mean as a junk yard dog.

[del]

Yes, you're joining in has that effect sometimes.

i strive for the kind of consistency which you display in that regard.

sadly, my reach exceeds my grasp.

[Alyosha]

Yes, we're all so very oppressed.

Sarcasm is impressive when you're 14. I'll try to get my niece to post so that you can have a fan.

[Common Sense]

Sarcasm is impressive when you're 14. I'll try to get my niece to post so that you can have a fan.

LOL...you deride sarcasm with more sarcasm. You sure showed me.

It was more like hyperbole, in my opinion.

[Alyosha]

LOL...you deride sarcasm with more sarcasm. You sure showed me.

It was more like hyperbole, in my opinion.

That wasn't sarcasm or hyperbole. It was a direct insult. Sarcasm is when you use words in the direct opposite of what you actually mean, ie someone saying they're oppressed to mean they are not. I truly mean your intellect is only impressive to a 14 year old.

[Chris]

i strive for the kind of consistency which you display in that regard.

sadly, my reach exceeds my grasp.


So sad. :cry: Maybe this will cheer you up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3GIQ86eu6c

[Common Sense]

That wasn't sarcasm or hyperbole. It was a direct insult. Sarcasm is when you use words in the direct opposite of what you actually mean, ie someone saying they're oppressed to mean they are not. I truly mean your intellect is only impressive to a 14 year old.

Sarcasm can be that, but it doesn't have to be.

[Alyosha]

Sarcasm can be that, but it doesn't have to be.


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9hcztnugj1r6b9ayo1_500.gif


Oh I'm sorry were you still talking to me?

[Common Sense]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9hcztnugj1r6b9ayo1_500.gif


Oh I'm sorry were you still talking to me?

There's this interesting concept here. I post something then you reply then you post "something" then I reply.

It's cool, huh?

[Alyosha]

My feelings on the topic are based off of the axiom that all laws have unintended consequences and therefore a law is only suitable as a method of control when it's effects are limited to those who have potentially committed an act of physical aggression towards another or deprived him or her of property.

As to the first half of the premise, consider what laws have not been sold to the public to be used for A and then later extrapolated to B and likewise to ask what law hasn't had a detrimental consequence to the liberty or property of those it was never meant to include.

A law should be used not to prevent but to have a means of adjudicating punishment as laws cannot prevent crime. Although some may say that there is some correlation which could assume that the punishment associated with the law, if extreme enough, can deter crime, correlation is not causation and that cannot be proven.

In the case of the need for non-discrimination acts today in 2015, an age of the Internet and immediate social reprisal (ask Mel Gibson, Tracy Morgan, or Donald Sterling), there is no evidence to suggest that government is necessary to create direct change in behavior.

All that they do is create a more divisive society and more difficult path to change hearts and minds. Perhaps immediately following the Civil Rights movement where one government toppled the laws of other governments, there was a need to move blacks to where they could "reset" the clock as Dr. James Farmer of CORE described the plan for Affirmative Action. It was a time of turmoil and a need to quickly measure terms and adjust behavior.

We're now past that time. The number of businesses that wouldn't serve blacks today would be probably zero (fear works well) and the number of businesses that would rather lose customers than take gays is still relatively slim and can be countered by other options within the marketplace.

I would have to see an overwhelming need to suggest we need the force of government to do what citizens cannot.

[Bob]

My feelings on the topic are based off of the axiom that all laws have unintended consequences and therefore a law is only suitable as a method of control when it's effects are limited to those who have potentially committed an act of physical aggression towards another or deprived him or her of property.

As to the first half of the premise, consider what laws have not been sold to the public to be used for A and then later extrapolated to B and likewise to ask what law hasn't had a detrimental consequence to the liberty or property of those it was never meant to include.

A law should be used not to prevent but to have a means of adjudicating punishment as laws cannot prevent crime. Although some may say that there is some correlation which could assume that the punishment associated with the law, if extreme enough, can deter crime, correlation is not causation and that cannot be proven.

In the case of the need for non-discrimination acts today in 2015, an age of the Internet and immediate social reprisal (ask Mel Gibson, Tracy Morgan, or Donald Sterling), there is no evidence to suggest that government is necessary to create direct change in behavior.

All that they do is create a more divisive society and more difficult path to change hearts and minds. Perhaps immediately following the Civil Rights movement where one government toppled the laws of other governments, there was a need to move blacks to where they could "reset" the clock as Dr. James Farmer of CORE described the plan for Affirmative Action. It was a time of turmoil and a need to quickly measure terms and adjust behavior.

We're now past that time. The number of businesses that wouldn't serve blacks today would be probably zero (fear works well) and the number of businesses that would rather lose customers than take gays is still relatively slim and can be countered by other options within the marketplace.

I would have to see an overwhelming need to suggest we need the force of government to do what citizens cannot.

That I agree with. As with most of your musings.

[Green Arrow]

i'm only 4 pages into this and i have to say it's in the top 10 most retarded threads ever.

have a cookie

Gee, thanks.

[Common]

Yeh, but I was the one arguing that they should have done more of it, if you recall. It's another reason I'm so disliked on here. :)

Bah I like you, I just cant understand a fricken thing you say half the time

[Green Arrow]

I'm sorry, but you've become sort of a dick lately.

You were the first poster I respected here. Something has changed.


What dickish things have I done, exactly?
Common Sense

[Common Sense]

@Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085)

Well, Safety related a story about his experiences and your response was some retarded meme.

I just think you're not as level headed as you used to be.

Just an observation.

No offense meant.

[Alyosha]

I'm sorry, but you've become sort of a dick lately.

You were the first poster I respected here. Something has changed.


Translated: I used to think you were a partisan kneejerk progressive like me then found out you were an anti-statist. You suck.

[Mister D]

I guess some will never understand how it affects a person to be treated like a 2nd class citizen. Growing up on a cattle farm I went with my father to the market to sell and buy cows. We grew up in a small farming town in Georgia. Now there was a local stockyard in town, but for some reason my father would always drive to S.C. to go to the stockyard there. One day I asked him why are we driving 45 minutes away when there was a market in town. He said one time before I was born he was there to buy some cows, and every time he raised his hand to bid, the auctioneer would look the other way and not acknowledge him, even after making eye contact. He said he tried to bid on three different cows, and every time he was ignored but the men around him were "noticed" just fine. He said after that day, he would never set foot in that facility again unless it was under new ownership. So, while it's all true to say "Just go to another business that wants your money", or "you're just making the people who hate you rich", I think it is bull$#@!.

Only the state can treat you like a second class citizen. Otherwise, what you have is people treating you poorly. This is really the crux of the matter. As a citizen you should be entitled to all of the privileges that come with citizenship. Your father was treated shamefully but not as a second class citizen.

[kilgram]

Only the state can treat you like a second class citizen. Otherwise, what you have is people treating you poorly. This is really the crux of the matter. As a citizen you should be entitled to all of the privileges that come with citizenship. Your father was treated shamefully but not as a second class citizen.
Not only the state can do such thing.

[Mister D]

Not only the state can do such thing.

yes, by definition.

[Green Arrow]

Well, Safety related a story about his experiences and your response was some retarded meme.

I just think you're not as level headed as you used to be.

Just an observation.

No offense meant.

It wasn't a meme. It was a gif of Benedict Cumberbatch raising his hand in response to @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226) saying nobody understood what it's like to be treated like that. As in...I do.

[Hal Jordan]

When you do math, if you were making $1 from twenty people and now can make $1 from fifty people, you're making more money.

In this case, the math is so simple, even you ​can do it... :P

[Animal Mother]

I guess some will never understand how it affects a person to be treated like a 2nd class citizen. Growing up on a cattle farm I went with my father to the market to sell and buy cows. We grew up in a small farming town in Georgia. Now there was a local stockyard in town, but for some reason my father would always drive to S.C. to go to the stockyard there. One day I asked him why are we driving 45 minutes away when there was a market in town. He said one time before I was born he was there to buy some cows, and every time he raised his hand to bid, the auctioneer would look the other way and not acknowledge him, even after making eye contact. He said he tried to bid on three different cows, and every time he was ignored but the men around him were "noticed" just fine. He said after that day, he would never set foot in that facility again unless it was under new ownership. So, while it's all true to say "Just go to another business that wants your money", or "you're just making the people who hate you rich", I think it is bullshit.


I just want to understand you Safety (I'm being serious)

In this case your father was not prevented from using this racists service. He was able to go to the auction and got poor service (looking the other way) because they didn't want to serve him.

So you're basically supporting the fact that you can force a baker to bake a cake for the gays (let him into the auction) but you can't prevent them from retaliation (poor service). Wouldn't your father have rather seen ahead that this guy was a racist bigot and not wasted his day with the cows?

And, knowing that the auctioneer was a racist in hindsight and would have looked the other way if he could (and did since your father wasn't prevented from going there, he was given shitty service) he chooses to give other people his money, people who aren't racists.

It seems like good people got your father's money and everything ended up "right". Or is that not how you see it? Like if there was a government worker there to prevent every cake from being harmed or every auction from being rigged, then people who didn't like gay or blacks would still be getting the money from gays and blacks that could have gone to people who aren't racist bigots.

I don't see how that's a "win". It's just leaving people blind to the reality that they just did business with a racist.

[Green Arrow]

In this case, the math is so simple, even you ​can do it... :P

Asshole :tongue:

[Common Sense]

Translated: I used to think you were a partisan kneejerk progressive like me then found out you were an anti-statist. You suck.

Hi sunshine!

Not exactly.

[Common Sense]

It wasn't a meme. It was a gif of Benedict Cumberbatch raising his hand in response to @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226) saying nobody understood what it's like to be treated like that. As in...I do.

Sorry, I misunderstood. It was sort of ambiguous.

My apologies.

[Hal Jordan]

$#@! :tongue:

Thank you for your kind words. I will consider them carefully... :tongue:

[Hal Jordan]

Seriously, I agree with getting rid of these laws. They had a place in the past, but in this modern age, with the technology and views on discrimination that we have now, they allow those who are hateful to make money off of the people they hate, which could be spent to help hateful causes. If businesses were allowed to discriminate openly, the hateful businesses would end up folding. I am a straight white male, and I would refuse to fund a business that would openly discriminate. In the end, ending these laws would lessen the funds for hate groups and thus be doing more against discrimination than having these laws. Yes, you would have people with similar views doing business with them, but it would be far less than they can get now.

[Safety]

I just want to understand you Safety (I'm being serious)

In this case your father was not prevented from using this racists service. He was able to go to the auction and got poor service (looking the other way) because they didn't want to serve him.

So you're basically supporting the fact that you can force a baker to bake a cake for the gays (let him into the auction) but you can't prevent them from retaliation (poor service). Wouldn't your father have rather seen ahead that this guy was a racist bigot and not wasted his day with the cows?

And, knowing that the auctioneer was a racist in hindsight and would have looked the other way if he could (and did since your father wasn't prevented from going there, he was given shitty service) he chooses to give other people his money, people who aren't racists.

It seems like good people got your father's money and everything ended up "right". Or is that not how you see it? Like if there was a government worker there to prevent every cake from being harmed or every auction from being rigged, then people who didn't like gay or blacks would still be getting the money from gays and blacks that could have gone to people who aren't racist bigots.

I don't see how that's a "win". It's just leaving people blind to the reality that they just did business with a racist.

You are absolutely correct, he was able to freely go to the auction (remember this is after Jim Crow), but he received no service because he wasn't welcome there. In turn he had to travel 45 minutes (which equates to an 1:30 of unnecessary time plus hauling a cattle trailer, so extra fuel) to another state and town to get the service anybody who is an American citizen should expect to receive. I'm not saying that something should have been done to force the auctioneer to recognize my father, but that sometimes there are aspects to people's lives that unless you experience or understand, it probably doesn't affect you much.

Nobody wants to see their loved one hurt, and obviously this occurred before I was born, but to see the hurt in his eyes when he told me, I will never forget it. And to think this coming from a Marine that was in Vietnam and a GA state trooper.

[Alyosha]

You are absolutely correct, he was able to freely go to the auction (remember this is after Jim Crow), but he received no service because he wasn't welcome there. In turn he had to travel 45 minutes (which equates to an 1:30 of unnecessary time plus hauling a cattle trailer, so extra fuel) to another state and town to get the service anybody who is an American citizen should expect to receive. I'm not saying that something should have been done to force the auctioneer to recognize my father, but that sometimes there are aspects to people's lives that unless you experience or understand, it probably doesn't affect you much.

Nobody wants to see their loved one hurt, and obviously this occurred before I was born, but to see the hurt in his eyes when he told me, I will never forget it. And to think this coming from a Marine that was in Vietnam and a GA state trooper.

You know how a libertarian would handle that? The auctioneer would wake up, go out of his house the next morning and we'd be waiting with baseball bats. I'll bet the next time he wouldn't pull that shit with your father.

[Alyosha]

Polecat

As to the Jew comment/Joo comment...you're probably right. There is something cultural to me not wanting to give bigots my money. In Safety's dad's case that is very sad and I'd beat up the auctioneer for him, but were it me and he didn't want my money, not only would I not give it to him but I'd harass his ass afterwards by showing up at his auction with my friends and start a ruckuss.

I would never unknowingly want assholes to have my money. To quote from Big Worm in Friday, playing with my money is like playing with my emotions.

[Safety]

You know how a libertarian would handle that? The auctioneer would wake up, go out of his house the next morning and we'd be waiting with baseball bats. I'll bet the next time he wouldn't pull that shit with your father.

LoL, that's why libertarians rock!

[Alyosha]

LoL, that's why libertarians rock!

I lost faith in government when I was talking to a friend of mine about a lawsuit. She was six years into it and I thought, Jesus Christ...people get no justice at all.

That whole Erin Brockovich story--the people of that town didn't see a dime for ten years, and how many cancer deaths later? The whole civil suit process is so convoluted that justice never fucking happens and when it does the lawyers get rich (not that we shouldn't get paid--I'm just saying...).

I believe in actual justice. That man who did that to your father needed a fucking punch in the nose and I'm just the woman to give it to him!

[Dr. Who]

Segregation was the actual law. I think that is sometimes overlooked. Of course that overlapped with personal prejudice but I have a hard time believing the system could have lasted if business owners coudl do as they pleased.
The businesses would otherwise vote with the majority of their customers, so if they would have boycotted the business for allowing blacks, the decision would have been simple. If on the other hand they would have gained more black custom than white, then the decision would have been simple. However in municipalities where blacks were outnumbered by whites by a significant margin, the outcome would not have been particularly favorable for blacks.

[Mister D]

The businesses would otherwise vote with the majority of their customers, so if they would have boycotted the business for allowing blacks, the decision would have been simple. If on the other hand they would have gained more black custom than white, then the decision would have been simple. However in municipalities where blacks were outnumbered by whites by a significant margin, the outcome would not have been particularly favorable for blacks.

What you would probably have had is a mix of practices but we know how the modern state likes everything uniform.

[Polecat]

@Polecat (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=921)

As to the Jew comment/Joo comment...you're probably right. There is something cultural to me not wanting to give bigots my money. In Safety's dad's case that is very sad and I'd beat up the auctioneer for him, but were it me and he didn't want my money, not only would I not give it to him but I'd harass his ass afterwards by showing up at his auction with my friends and start a ruckuss.

I would never unknowingly want assholes to have my money. To quote from Big Worm in Friday, playing with my money is like playing with my emotions.

I don't want to be where I am not wanted either. But for different reasons. As per Jesus: Even the tax collectors extend sympathy to each other.

[Alyosha]

I don't want to be where I am not wanted either. But for different reasons. As per Jesus: Even the tax collectors extend sympathy to each other.

To each other--key point.

[Polecat]

To each other--key point.

He was speaking on the matter of being hospitable to your enemies as well as your brothers. i.e. for even the scum of the earth treat each other as brothers. Rather than fostering a hatred for them let empathy and kindness be in your heart. This is not for their benefit but your own. I understand this now. Took me 54 years to get it.

[Alyosha]

He was speaking on the matter of being hospitable to your enemies as well as your brothers. i.e. for even the scum of the earth treat each other as brothers. Rather than fostering a hatred for them let empathy and kindness be in your heart. This is not for their benefit but your own. I understand this now. Took me 54 years to get it.

First, I was being cheeky, but second you speak as if I would deny service to someone when clearly I would not. Government "force", however, is not peaceful. Jesus would change the hearts of bigots or drive them out of the Temple court, but he would not force them to servitude. There is no indication in any of the Gospels that Jesus was a big time law and state guy. He took 663 laws and condensed them to just "2". He did not try to rule Judea as people wanted but to teach us to be prepared for a higher calling and a heavenly kingdom.

[Polecat]

First, I was being cheeky, but second you speak as if I would deny service to someone when clearly I would not. Government "force", however, is not peaceful. Jesus would change the hearts of bigots or drive them out of the Temple court, but he would not force them to servitude. There is no indication in any of the Gospels that Jesus was a big time law and state guy. He took 663 laws and condensed them to just "2". He did not try to rule Judea as people wanted but to teach us to be prepared for a higher calling and a heavenly kingdom.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

[TrixWitch]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

That quote is often misused. It is specific to taxation should you read the context of that Gospel passage.

[Alyosha]

That quote is often misused. It is specific to taxation should you read the context of that Gospel passage.

Actually it is a quote from Cicero in reference to Julius Caesar and it was originally a snark regarding Caesar's dictatorship. Either Jesus did not say this and it was an added passage or he was using a wordplay to say something else.

[Polecat]

That quote is often misused. It is specific to taxation should you read the context of that Gospel passage.

It was actually about tithing.

[TrixWitch]

It was actually about tithing.

Then they would not use Roman coin at all. The coinage of Rome was specific for use in tax and business. Tithing was done in shekels.

[Polecat]

Then they would not use Roman coin at all. The coinage of Rome was specific for use in tax and business. Tithing was done in shekels.

Hence the money changers in the Temple.

[TrixWitch]

Hence the money changers in the Temple.

They used shekels. It was regarding the imperial tax, not the tithe, and his way of avoiding a philosophical trap.

Matthew 22:15-22New International Version (NIV)Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:15-22#fen-NIV-23890a)] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

[Polecat]

Openly calling for tax evasion is not a philosophical point. It would be a revolt.

[TrixWitch]

Openly calling for tax evasion is not a philosophical point. It would be a revolt.

Your point was that it was a tithe. A tax is not a tithe. A tax is a tax.

[Polecat]

My interpretation is that Jesus spoke of things concerning God and declined to discuss matters of the state. (Rome) I was in essence agreeing with Aly about him not being a political sort.

[Peter1469]

My interpretation is that Jesus spoke of things concerning God and declined to discuss matters of the state. (Rome) I was in essence agreeing with Aly about him not being a political sort.

That is one interpretation. Another was that he was a revolutionary (Zealot) who knew the ancient prophecy and simply played the part to gain enough followers to revolt against Rome.

[Polecat]

That is one interpretation. Another was that he was a revolutionary (Zealot) who knew the ancient prophecy and simply played the part to gain enough followers to revolt against Rome.

That is nothing you could interpret from reading the New Testament. Perhaps you got that idea somewhere else.

[Peter1469]

That is nothing you could interpret from reading the New Testament. Perhaps you got that idea somewhere else.

Right. See the Enlightenment Thread about that.

[Alyosha]

That is one interpretation. Another was that he was a revolutionary (Zealot) who knew the ancient prophecy and simply played the part to gain enough followers to revolt against Rome.

Yet he never did. He was antistatist eschewing the state in favor of a heavenly kingdom. He broke multiple laws to prove that not all laws are good, he beat the money changers out of the Temple with a knotted rope, and he refused to be an Earthly king.

Jesus was an anarchist. :cool2:

[Mister D]

That is nothing you could interpret from reading the New Testament. Perhaps you got that idea somewhere else.

Or from reading anything else save for the speculations of modern writers.

[Peter1469]

Yet he never did. He was antistatist eschewing the state in favor of a heavenly kingdom. He broke multiple laws to prove that not all laws are good, he beat the money changers out of the Temple with a knotted rope, and he refused to be an Earthly king.

Jesus was an anarchist. :cool2:

I think that is more likely than the other theory I mentioned above. What I really think he was is the Son of God who was apolitical and only cared about people's immortal souls. He didn't give a fuck about politics.

[Mister D]

If the Jesus movement was revolutionary the question of why the Roman state didn't annihilate it right then and there needs to be answered. Why didn't they kill his followers too? Even his closest disciples they left alone. They pursued and destroyed every other Messianic movement with pretensions to temporal power. Why not this one?

[Peter1469]

If the Jesus movement was revolutionary the question of why the Roman state didn't annihilate it right then and there needs to be answered. Why didn't they kill his followers too? Even his closest disciples they left alone. They pursued and destroyed every other Messianic movement with pretensions to temporal power. Why not this one?

There was a Zealot movement, I am not sure of the timing.

But at the time of Jesus, Pontius Pilate had been recalled to Rome to get an ass chewing from the Emperor about being too much of a hard ass on the Jews. The last thing he wanted was to get in the middle of the dispute between the establishment Jews and the upstart Jesus.

[Alyosha]

If the Jesus movement was revolutionary the question of why the Roman state didn't annihilate it right then and there needs to be answered. Why didn't they kill his followers too? Even his closest disciples they left alone. They pursued and destroyed every other Messianic movement with pretensions to temporal power. Why not this one?

They allowed several mystery religions to exist as long as those religions were pacifistic. Jesus called for a "heavenly kingdom". That's no threat to Rome.

And even if he called for an Earthly one they would have accepted it as long as it paid it's taxes. :)

[kilgram]

Yet he never did. He was antistatist eschewing the state in favor of a heavenly kingdom. He broke multiple laws to prove that not all laws are good, he beat the money changers out of the Temple with a knotted rope, and he refused to be an Earthly king.

Jesus was an anarchist. :cool2:
Others would say that he was the first communist, too :)

And probably, in my opinion both affirmations are right.