Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Tangle runs away:

quote:

---

an awful lot of stuff which seems intended only to aggressively miss the point

---

Given your deliberate foolishness, one must be aggressive.You'll never change unless you're confronted. Or is it "petty" to engage you?

quote:

---

I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples.

---

Right, because a black person being denied a hotel room is a legitimate cause for the law to come down hard on the hotelier.But a gay couple being denied a wedding cake, that's just "petty." I mean, the black person has a legitimate gripe but for gays to think that they should have the law actually enforced for them is "counter-productive."You don't get to decide what is important.

quote:

---

Pick more strategic targets, make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner.

---

Whys thanks ya, massa! This here back o' the bus is just fine! It gets to the bus stop sames time as the front! I wouldn't want to run the risk of upsetting anybody who might be an ally by complaining!

quote:

---

The cause has gone beyond the need to throw yourself under the King's horse - get smarter.

---

And just what do you think the "cause" is? Third time I've asked you, Tangle:What is it that was "won"?You didn't think marriage equality was "the main battle," did you?

New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:

---

To me, it's not about not baking the cake.

---

And to the aggrieved customer, it isn't about baking the cake, either.When you go to a restaurant and they serve you spoiled food, you don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You leave and go somewhere else.And if it were just about the food, that's all you'd do. But since it isn't about the food, you then call the Health Department and report them for violations of safety regulations regarding food preparation and service.But we've already established that you're OK with people being harmed in this situation because there shouldn't be any laws against serving spoiled food. Yelp will protect people.

quote:

---

That would have been so easy to get away with if they had just said: "No thank you, I'm tired and don't feel like baking a cake right now."

​

But they didn't. Instead, they took a stand and said that they could not perform the service because the patrons were gay.

​

I can see why people would want to squash that.

​

If they would have quietly been bigots then we wouldn't be talking about this.

---

Um, no. To go to your Yelp example, when enough people notice that the only time the proprietor is begging off is when the customers are gay, their still in violation of the law. And since they've now got a bunch of people who can claim a grievance, they're now facing a class action lawsuit.If you want to be able to say, "I'm tired and don't feel like baking a cake right now," then all you need do is be a private contractor.We've been through this before. Is there a reason why you've forgotten?When you open your business as a public accommodation, you don't get to complain when the public shows up. You gain the benefit of having anybody as a customer. Yeah, you'll advertise, but it's to get people to know that you exist. You're not soliciting individual clients but are casting your net wide in the hopes of getting as many customers as possible. But the responsibility that comes along with that is the requirement that you take all customers. You don't get to say no. As a public accommodation, you must accommodate the public.If you're not up to that, if you want to be able to pick and choose your clients (even if the criteria isn't all that particular), then you must establish yourself as a private contractor. Your advertisements are to find those specific people who would be a match for you. You get to say no. But the responsibility that comes along with that is that you have to go chasing your clients.Suppose you want your picture taken. You could go to Glamour Shots at the mall. They're a public accommodation and as such, they cannot say no. And they cannot say, "I'm tired and don't feel like taking a picture right now." They might be able to get away with it for a while, but it will eventually come out and then they're just as screwed as if they just admitted it in the first place.You could also try to get Anne Geddes to take your picture. However, she's not a public accommodation. She's a private contractor and as such, she can say no. And it can be for pretty much any reason.But I forget...you think anti-discrimination laws are the problem. Yelp will save us all!I guess that means you're for subsidizing people with tax money to help them pay for the internet, right? After all, what's the point of insisting that Yelp will solve the problem of bigotry if people can't access it?

New Cat's Eye responds to ringo:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"When bigotry is outlawed, only outlaws will be bigots."

---

​

Only if you start legislating thought...

---

And thank heaven nobody is suggesting that. You are free to be as bigoted as you wish. But if you're a public accommodation, you have to swallow that and provide the same excellent service to all your customers or face the consequences of your actions.

quote:

---

Bigoted behavior may be outlawed, but you're not going to end bigotry, itself, with laws.

---

No, for that, you need Yelp.Or to be in the 1700s because they were in the fantasy land of "Capitalism" and didn't have to put up with those liberals thinking that behaviour should be regulated by the law. Racism only happened once capitalism was rejected, right? It was them liberals and socialists and communists that came up with the segregation laws! No True Capitalist ever denies a customer, right?

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

1. Baking bigots would be better off making an excuse and pointing to a nicer baker

---

No, that's still illegal. When it comes out that you only do that to the gay customers, you're now facing a class-action lawsuit.Public accommodations are required to accommodate the public. They don't get to say no.

quote:

---

2. LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.

---

Whys thanks ya, massa! This here back o' the bus is just fine! It gets to the bus stop sames time as the front! I wouldn't want to run the risk of upsetting anybody who might be an ally by complaining!

quote:

---

Now I apparently have to say also that any LGBT with a genuine grieveance and evidence of hurt needs to shout about it. But so much I thought was obvious.

---

Because a black person being denied a hotel room is a "genuine grievance" with "evidence of hurt."But a gay couple being denied a cake is "trivial" and it would be "petty" and "counterproductive" to do anything about it.After all, the bigoted hotelier can simply "make an excuse and point to a nicer hotel." No harm, no foul, right?

PaulK writes:

quote:

---

That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.

---

Incorrect.Wow, are you off there. It is most definitely considered. But who's going to have that conversation with them? The judge? Can you say, "First Amendment violation"? The law isn't there to tell you what to think or provide you with a sermon on what the True Meaning of Christmas is. It is simply there to regulate your actions. It doesn't matter why you're violating the law by discriminating against gay people.And to that end, people have the right to be bigots. If they want to insist that their religion requires that gay people be considered tantamount to Satan, that's their right. After all, you're assuming you know the religion of the person being the bigot.And as we have seen with Faith, trying to point out that the Bible doesn't say that or does say this other thing doesn't actually do anything. She's certain that anybody who contradicts her is an idiot and in league with the devil.Remember, the florist in Washington who refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding was refusing to provide service to someone she claimed was a "friend." She had been happy to provide her services to these men for years. She certainly knew they were gay. There were any number of chances at conversation to discuss what the Bible instructs.But it doesn't matter. That's not what the law is for. Even if we assumed that they had those conversations, she's still free to reject it all and maintain her position.What she doesn't have is the right to deny them service.In all my dealings with Faith on this subject, I've not attempted to change her mind about her religious beliefs because I maintain she has a right to them. After all, I've long argued with her on what the Bible actually says, and it still hasn't changed her mind. And in the end, it's irrelevant. The law doesn't care why a business owner treats their customers equally, only that they do.

PaulK responds to me:

quote:

---

Faith really considered that ? I doubt it very much.

---

No, not Faith.Those of us engaging with Faith. This was your original comment: We who are engaging in Faith have tried to help her "see that her objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine." Because that, really, is the best solution: The law can only force you to treat people with dignity and respect. But if you are internally motivated to do so, you don't have to fight to do it. And you're much less likely to slip up. And when you do, you'll try to avoid making the same mistake in the future.That's why my complete comment was: The goal is to end the discrimination and bigotry. The law can only work on the surface actions. And it is always late to the party, only being able to act after the harm has been done. If we could help the bigot find a motivation to not be bigoted, that would be more effective, but the law isn't the means to do that.Despite what New Cat's Eye thinks, anti-discrimination laws don't regulate thought. Nobody expects them to. And, in fact, it would be anathema to the liberal principle of freedoms of religion and conscience and speech to even attempt.Only other people can do that.Yeah, Faith isn't considering the possibility that she's wrong. Thus, the law is necessary to ensure she doesn't run amok.But those of us who have engaged Faith have certainly tried to help her see that her claims to Christianity have very little to do with the book she claims to revere so highly.But then again, that's not for us to decide. It's her life, her thoughts, her..."faith." It's only a matter of convenience that there is a book that we are all somewhat knowledgeable of. The next person may follow a religious tradition that is completely unique and that only they know the details of. When faced with that person, we don't have the ability to "help them see that their objections have a poor grounding in their religious doctrine" because, well, it isn't poorly grounded at all.And we're back to the law and discussing inconsistencies in how it is applied.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

You're making it very easy for me to tell you to do one.

---

Do one what?

quote:

---

Yes I do. Just like you get to decide what is. And just as I'm able to disagree with you.

---

Of course.The question is, are you going to engage in questions put to you to help clarify your position and test it for inconsistencies or are you going to run away?A hotelier who denies a black person a room should have the law come down on them hard. That's what you said (Message 129): Emphasis added. But when a gay couple is denied a cake or flowers or photography, they should just "calm down" lest they be "counterproductive" and wind up "doing more harm than good."Let's remember what you actually said in Message 41: Emphasis added. And in Message 73: Emphasis added. You're accusing the gay people who are fighting for their rights of being "activist." That they didn't actually suffer any harm. That they weren't being sincere.And why? Because, as you said in Message 121: So when you come along and write:

quote:

---

You see what this does? I'm on your side, I agree with the complaint, I'd be on the streets beside you.

---

You can understand why you would be considered a liar. All your posts except two in this thread have been predicated on the premise that gays seeking to have their rights upheld are doing so for ulterior motives.The infamous florist case here in the United States refers to a gay man who had been a customer of the florist for years. When he finally decided to get married, of course he went to the person whom he thought was his friend to give them the business.Was he "looking for a fight"? Was he being "activist"? Was he "outing" somebody? Was he, as you said in Message 129, "artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues"?As if a wedding is "trivial" for the person getting married?You're behaving like a total ass. How do you think this plays with those you are trying to convince you are their ally?As for my "opponents," well, bigots gonna bigot. I've stated my position numerous times here, so let me remind you:If you cannot treat gay people as full and equal members of society in all aspects and areas without any hesitation or question, then you're a homophobic bigot. The fact that you aren't lying in wait outside a gay bar with a baseball bat doesn't change that fact. The line is not drawn at bloodshed. Just because someone didn't die or wasn't sent to the hospital doesn't mean it isn't bigotry.Nobody's perfect. So when your bigotry gets pointed out to you and you dig in your heels and scream and shout, that simply means you're still wedded to your prejudice. If, on the other hand, you accept that you've made a mistake, even if it wasn't intentional and you didn't realize you were doing it, and will try to examine why you made it and work to not do it again, then that means you're working on it.So yeah, that means Obama was a bigot when he changed his mind regarding marriage equality. Ya see, back when he was just running for Illinois Senate, he stated that he was for marriage equality. But then when he made it to the White House, suddenly it was not such a great idea. And then he later "evolved." And while we can certainly be happy that he managed to finally land on the right side of the issue, the fact that he decided to hedge his bets was an act of homophobia. And it caused real harm to people.And it's because he was pressured, because he was called out on it, because Joe Biden kicked his butt and put him on the spot regarding the issue that he finally came around.So no, I don't care if the bigots get upset for having their bigotry called out. As someone once pointed out to me, if someone can have their philosophy of life changed just by someone talking to them for 15 minutes, then that wasn't their philosophy to begin with.I have no illusions that anybody is going to change their mind just because of what I said. They have to do that work for themselves.

PaulK responds to me:

quote:

---

You seem to have not noticed that I was discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position.

---

You seem to have not noticed that I dealt with that, too.However, you didn't start off with that. Remember, we can see your posts.This is what you said (Message 145): You will note that Faith isn't mentioned. That comes later. So I responded to that one point first.It was only later you got around to Faith: And I responded to that point second: Now, I'l admit that I was leaving it ambiguous that I was responding to this point because I didn't directly quote it. But for you to say that I "have not noticed that you were discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position" is trivially proven false.

quote:

---

However since Faith has great difficulty understanding quite simple passages from the Bible it seems rather futil yo hole that she would be persuaded, no matter how sound the arguments.

---

What makes you think I hold any hope of Faith changing her mind? We've been having the same argument with her for quite literally years. If she isn't going to actually read the Bible she claims to revere after all this time, what makes any of us think that this time is going to be any different?That's why during this discussion, I haven't really attempted to discuss Biblical doctrine with her. I have simply pointed out that people used religious doctrine to claim an exemption to civil rights laws with respect to race. They were slapped down. Thus, when faced with the identical scenario of people using religious doctrine to claim an exemption to civil rights law with respect to sexual orientation, we should be consistent and slap them down, too.Unless, of course, the racists shouldn't have been slapped down and people do have the right to deny service on the basis of race by citing religious freedom (a la New Cat's Eye...and I'm not going to change his mind, either.)

NoNukes responds to me:

quote:

---

The question is how likely the baker is to get caught if he uses a pretext.

---

Precisely.That's why the law is needed. It comes down the basic question:Should a business that is open to the public be allowed to deny the public when it shows up?New Cat's Eye position seems to be, yes. The law has no business telling a business that they cannot discriminate. Somehow, "the free market" will solve it...even though it hasn't managed to do so yet because somehow Captialism! (C) is being thwarted by the very law.Of course, that position makes no sense. After all, the law simply says that if you discriminate, you'll be subjected to consequences. But nobody would deliberately go to a business that was known to have a problem with discrimination. If you know that the cook in the diner doesn't like , why would you go there?* As Ben Carson pointed out, they might poison the food: But here's the thing: Nobody wants them to handle the affair once it's discovered they're a bigot. The couples that ordered the cake, the flowers, the photography, they all went somewhere else. None of them wanted the bigot to have their business.But they still got reported to the regulatory agencies. As my example points out, when you go to a restaurant and they serve you spoiled food, you don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You go somewhere else. And you still report them to the health department because they are in violation of the law. You're not going to patronize them again, but that doesn't mean they are off the hook.And that's why New Cat's Eye's argument is self-contradictory. The people involved didn't want to use the bigots for their affairs. They would tell their friends about the bigoted experience they received and word-of-mouth would spread.How does having the law prevent discrimination prevent that from happening? After all, lawsuits take time. The incident took place in 2013. The case is still ongoing.And she's still in business.And thus, we see the disingenuousness of New Cat's Eye's argument: He doesn't actually want to end racism. If people can get away with it, then they should be allowed to. Heaven forbid there should be any consequences to ones actions.Typical Libertarian claptrap.-----
*Well, as Tangle would say, they're "activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots" and are "just looking for a fight." Of course, not those blacks who did the lunch counter sit-ins...that was a "legitimate" complaint. No, gays looking for equal treatment from a florist are focusing on the "trivial."

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

You're obviously not interested in reasoned and reasonable discussion.

---

You know, when Faith tries that tactic, we all know it's because she's running away.What makes you think you're going to be any different?In your first nine posts in this thread, seven of them attributed nefarious ulterior motives to gay people seeking to have their rights recognized: Message 41: Message 73: Message 121: Message 121: Message 136: Message 143: Message 152: So for you to come along and complain that I'm "obviously not interested in reasoned and reasonable discussion," you can understand my reaction:You were never involved in any "reasoned and reasonable discussion." It's why you've refused to answer the very simple questions regarding your position about these "activist" gays: So now's the time for you to have this "reasoned and reasonable discussion." You repeatedly claimed that gays who are fighting to have their rights recognized are "activist" and "doing more harm than good."So did Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll "actively look for Barronelle Stutzman to make an example of"? That's the florist in Washington that's in the news.Did Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer "actively look for Melissa and Aaron Klein to make an example of"? That's the baker in Oregon that's in the news.Did Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth "actively look for Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin to make an example of"? That's the photographer in New Mexico that's in the news.Now's your chance, Tangle. Time to be a big boy and put your money where your mouth is. You claim to want a "reasoned and reasonable discussion," so it's time for you to engage.Were these people "activist"? Where they "looking for a fight"? Were their lawsuits "misplaced"? Were they "petty and unnecessarily aggressive"? Were their actions "counterproductive"?Or are you going to run away?

NoNukes responds to me:

quote:

---

I think Tangle is saying that it is okay to kick Obama's butt around this way, but once the government and the law is on your side, and the problem is bad bakers rather than bad law, that different tactics should be applied.

---

But what, exactly, are these "different tactics" that he would prefer to see?After all, all that happened was the the business owners got sued for violating the local anti-discrimination law. After all, what's the point of having a law to protect against discrimination if it is "misplaced activism" (his words) to avail yourself of it?Why does he think that a hotelier that denies a room to a black person is deserving of having the law come down hard on him but a florist that denies an arrangement to a gay couple isn't?Exactly what other "tactic" has been offered?Oh, that's right...because a black person who sues the hotelier for denying a room isn't "activist." They didn't "artificially target" the hotelier.But the gay couple that sues the baker is. They went "looking for a fight."The black person is sincere.The gay person is not.

quote:

---

I do understand that forcing a baker to make a cake when you could go next door can produce some negative PR for the customer.

---

I thought you were better than this. Time for the exasperation:NOBODY FORCED THE BAKER TO BAKE A CAKE!My god, are you really that naive? When Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer were denied a cake by Melissa and Aaron Klein, they didn't put their wedding on hold for more than two years in order to get a court order forcing Sweet Cakes by Melissa to bake them a damned white-cake-with-raspberry-filling monstrosity.They went somewhere else.They then reported the business to the regulatory agencies (especially because the bakers then took to social media to dox the Bowman-Cryers) and sued.My god, how many times do I have to repeat the example before people remember it?If you go to a restaurant and they serve you rotted food, you don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You don't sit around and wait for a court order to come along to make them redo your meal. You get up, leave, and go somewhere else.But you still report them to the authorities for serving rotted food. That's a violation of the law. The fact that you are eating somewhere else doesn't let the restaurant off the hook.So when you go to a baker and they tell you that no, they won't do your wedding, you don't just sit there waiting for a court order to come along to make them bake you a cake. You get up, leave, and go somewhere else.But you still report them to the authorities for discrimination. That's a violation of the law. The fact that you are eating someone else's stale sheet cake doesn't let the baker off the hook.C'mon, NoNukes. You're smart enough not to fall for conservative stupidity.Ben Carson: How stupid is he that he actually thinks that gay people would give any business to a known bigot?Why are you using the same stupid argument?

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

This thread is a great example to support Tangle's position. There are times when the more effective tactic is to simply stop responding then to continue making a point but in a manner that causes even those who agree with you to simply turn off anything you say.

---

I know.So why is Tangle still responding? Surely he would realize that he's turning off people to what he's saying?It's cute how you think you get to be the arbiter of what is "effective."

quote:

---

The issue is when to make use of such laws and when to simply ignore the bigotry. Where is effort best spent?

---

And who the hell are you to tell somebody else that they should just put up with the bigotry?If you cannot accept people as full-fledged members of society in every area, full-throatedly, without hesitation or question, then you're a bigot.For you to dare tell someone else that they should just put up with bigotry because it might "turn off those who agree with you" to fight it shows that you have some work to do regarding your own bigotry.Nobody's expecting you to take up arms.You are expected to not substitute your opinion about what is "worthy" for someone else's. You're not living their lives. They are the ones who have to make the decision about what they are willing to shrug off and what they need to fight.What's the point of having anti-discrimination laws if you aren't allowed to avail yourself of them when you encounter bigotry? Why even bother saying you're going to protect gay people from discrimination if you're just going to whine about them "turning off those who might agree" if they dare demand to actually be protected?Surely you aren't saying that it's only important if somebody might die? It's only important if blood is shed, are you? Is that the only line? So long as I don't send you to the hospital, I'm free to make your life miserable?Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

NoNukes responds to me:

quote:

---

It appears that you are looking for a fight.

---

Incorrect.It appears that I am looking for someone to justify why they get to tell someone else what is "important" in their lives. Why they get to determine that the reason they are suing someone for discrimination is because they are "activists" who are "artificially targeting" someone.

quote:

---

Even filing a law suit can result in negative PR.

---

I see...so nobody should actually file a lawsuit unless nobody's feathers get ruffled.Of course, that leads to the question of why bother? After all, the reason to file a lawsuit is because somebody's feathers got ruffled and at the end of the case, somebody is going to be upset. There wouldn't be a lawsuit if everybody agreed that the action being sued over was wrong. But if everybody agreed with that, it never would have happened.Why do you think we should coddle the bigots? Bigots are going to be upset over being called out on their bigotry.And those who seek to coddle them have their own bigotry to handle.You don't get to tell another person to just put up with it. You aren't living their lives. Just because you don't think much of what happened doesn't mean nobody else should, either. How many times does a person get to be discriminated against before it's finally legitimate for them to fight back? Of course, that raises the question of why the last person who discriminated is being made to pay for the crimes of all the others. You're going to find businesses to help you through your wedding. You start with the baker and they tell you no. So you shrug it off and go to another and they tell you no. So you shrug it off and go to another and they finally agree. So you find a florist and do this song and dance with four of them. And then you try to find a photographer and you have to go through five of them.At what point do you get to say that enough is enough? Three? Five? Twelve?That only makes sense if you claim that certain acts of discrimination are not worthy of being corrected. Yeah, we have an anti-discrimination law that protects you, but you aren't allowed to use it.

quote:

---

As for what tactic Tangle thinks you should use instead, well you'd have to ask him.

---

I have.Repeatedly.But since you're taking up the cause, exactly what do you think the tactic should be for someone who was discriminated against? What's the point of having laws to protect against discrimination if you aren't allowed to use them lest it be seen as "bad PR"?Yeah, if you decide to sue, you need to determine if you're willing to put up with the potentiality that everybody around you is going to hate you for it.Of course, that means that they are bigots, too, and isn't it nice to know who your actual friends are? After all, supporters don't call you "activist" for standing up for your rights. Supporters don't whine about "bad PR" when you insist on equal treatment. Supporters don't claim you're "artificially targetting" people.

quote:

---

All I have stated is that I understand what Tangle is saying. I don't agree with him. I'm perfectly fine with a noisy law suit or boycott, but I don't think his suggestion makes him an idiot.

---

And yet, it does.And your defense of it (note...not your "understanding" of it...I "understand" it, too) leaves you wandering in the same direction.Yes, someone's going to get upset when you sue someone. When you draw a line in the sand and force people to take sides, there will always be somebody on the other side.That doesn't justify claiming you should never draw a line in the sand.And it *certainly* doesn't justify the ascribing of nefarious ulterior motives to those who are as Tangle did over and over again.

quote:

---

We're on the same side.

---

Then why are you having such a hard time putting your money where your mouth is?Tangle called the people who sued the baker in Oregon and the florist in Washington and the photographer in New Mexico "activists" who were "looking for a fight" and thus "artificially targeted" them.Do you agree with that assessment?Do you think that's even likely in the general case? Do the people who sue businesses for discrimination tend to be those who do so for fun?Or did they actually try to engage the business, got discriminated against, and decided to do something about it?Why are you having such a hard time calling out the stupid on it?

Tangle runs away:

quote:

---

Sorry Chuck, I haven't read beyond this.

---

So when you said you were looking for "reasoned and reasonable discussion," you were lying?

New Cat's Eye responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

you think anti-discrimination laws are the problem.

---

Wrong again; I don't think that at all.

---

Did you or did you not write the following: Message 222Interesting use of the word "totalitarianism" in response to a government regulation mandating anti-discrimination. Oh, you'll probably say that you are in favor of Title IX, but notice that you're complaining about the guidelines explicitly protecting trans people...saying they "didn't add anything to the law;" something trivially disproven given the Gavin Grimm case.But, let's go on: Message 225There's that admonition of government interference. You first insinuate that it wasn't capitalists that instituted the segregation laws, even though it was. You then say that we didn't even need any governmental interference to manage it with the risible "take your business elsewhere" mantra and a direct statement, "We do not need a state involved." Strange how that didn't seem to solve the problem then, so why would it solve it now?But, let's go on: Message 293There's that word "totalitarian" again...and again in reference to anti-discrimination laws. You try to explain what you mean with: So one again, you seem to be complaining about the effective use of government with regard to anti-discrimination.Oh, and this will come up again, soon, so don't forget it.But, let's go on: Message 295, where you respond directly to me asking you about anti-discrimination law: So here we have a direct statement of yours saying that we don't need anti-discrimination law. Now, given your previous comments about government interference and totalitarianism and "how to think," it's hard not to get the impression that you're not impressed with anti-discrimination law.Same message, in response to someone reporting a proprietor to the regulatory agency for violation of anti-discrimination law: And there we have it. Anti-discrimination law is "totalitarian." Are you about to say that when you use the word "totalitarian," you don't mean that it's a "problem"?But, let's go on: Message 299And, we're back to your attempt to invoke "No True Capitalist" and say that it was the evil "totalitarians" who instituted segregation laws, even though that is trivially proven false. And again, you claim that "we don't need" anti-discrimination laws.Now, here's a possible thought: You could try to weasel out of this by saying that when you repeatedly claim that "we don't need" anti-discrimination law, you mean that it's a tool that we might have in the box but it isn't something that has to be used...kinda like how you don't need a rice cooker to make rice so long as you have a pot.But that doesn't exactly jibe with a follow-up comment that rice cookers are "totalitarian" and violate "capitalism."But, let's go on: Message 331, again with you responding directly to me regarding the lunch counter sit-ins: Now, this is because you were completely ignorant of the lunch counter sit-ins. There was no mandated segregation at that location. In fact, the four students who started it had just bought some toothpaste at the integrated counter before going over to the lunch counter.So for you to blame the state rather than the capitalists who didn't seem to have any trouble taking black people's money in one way but not another is very telling, don't you think?Perhaps that governmental interference is the problem? I mean, let's take a look at the rest of that sentence, shall we: Because that is precisely the opposite of what happened. There was no law preventing them from serving black people, and yet they didn't. Where were the vaunted "capitalists" who would have immediately "sorted out" racism if not for the "totalitarian" state telling them not to?You continue on, responding to my comment: Ignoring the "thoughts" part of that statement (but don't forget it...it'll come back up soon), it's quite telling that you are upset of the law regulating behaviour.Do you even understand what the law is for? It's to regulate behaviour. That's all it can do. That's the entire point behind anti-discrimination law: To regulate racist behaviour.And yet here you are, claiming that to do so is "totalitarian." And there it is again...anti-discrimination law is "totalitarian," that it isn't something we "need."So, when you say that you "don't think that at all," it becomes quite apparent that you are...oh, how to describe it?...how about, "being less than honest." It's like you have forgotten that we have a record of your past arguments and can look them up. Are you pulling a Faith where a comment you make in another thread is somehow negated here because you didn't make it here?Now, I'm hardly saying that because you think anti-discrimination laws are, oh, let's be kind and say, part of the problem that you are some sort of slathering racist who wants to establish a white state. I do not doubt that you don't like racism. You just don't like government, too. Arguably your distaste for government is more intense than for racism and thus, you are willing to tolerate racist acts in order to prevent the government from getting involved.But at least be honest about it.On top of that, despite your claim that the free market will sort it out, you then immediately contradict yourself and say that it won't, indeed, that it can't: Message 335So it seems you're trying to have it both ways. The "free market" can end racism, but it can't if the capitalists don't want to end it. If capitalism can't end racism if the society doesn't want to end it, then it's a useless tool.You do understand that concept, yes? A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If you add a quantity to a situation and there is no change, then it didn't actually do anything. If adding capitalism to racism doesn't stop racism, then capitalism has no effect upon racism.It's obvious that you're more interested in running away from your own argument than accept the consequences of having made them.No wonder you're done.