The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Finally thinking it through, if their reasoning was that the Bible calls homosexual sex a sin and they don't want to be in th position of contributing to homolsexual sex, which of course a hotel would be in a way that a bakery or florist or photographer wouldn't, then I'd say yes the English courts are wrong, the hotel owners should not be required to violate their Christian conscience.

---

And exactly how are they going to be "contributing to homosexual sex"?Are they going to be peeping?Hint: Gay people aren't constantly having sex. Just because two gay people share a room doesn't mean they're having sex.But then again, since anti-discrimination laws prevent refusing service on this basis, are you suggesting that we should do away with those laws?Would a hotel be allowed to deny renting a room to black people? To a single woman? She's probably a prostitute, after all, right? No respectable woman would be unescorted and we can't be seen as "contributing to prostitution," right? Or to an unmarried mixed-sex couple. They're probably fornicating and those pesky anti-discrimination laws preventing discrimination on the basis of marital status are an attack on your religious freedom, right?I've asked this question of you multiple times, Faith. Time to put up or shut up.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Your opinion of other people's motivations is worthless.

---

That isn't an answer to the question, Faith. Try again:Again, how does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?

quote:

---

I told the truth, that's the truth, there isn't any more to say.

---

You mean anti-discrimination laws don't exist?If your religious proclivities prevent you from providing your services to gay couples who might use your product as a way of feeling good about their marriage, then you are free to find some other line of work.Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?How many times do I need to ask the same question before you answer it?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

It's the Left that's anti-Semitic these days

---

Huh? According to the right, the left is swarming with Jews. After all, "liberal" Hollywood is run by Jews, right?Remember, Faith: The Jewish demographic is heavily Democratic and liberal.Nice try in having it both ways.It's cute how you think that your religion, which calls for the death of all Jews at the Second Coming, is somehow something other than anti-Semitic. You are only "pro-Israel" so far as it suits your purposes: The Jews need to die in order for you to have your heaven.That you seem to think that one should be "anti" an entire group of people shows just how far your monstrosity goes, Faith.

Still waiting on your answer, Faith:How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?

Faith doesn't respond but instead gets sidetracked.

quote:

---

As I've already said nobody has to justify how they base their actions on the Bible and an unbeliever will never get it anyway.

---

Irrelevant. The US Government is in no way based upon the Bible. Instead, it is based upon the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law.That means that when the law requires you to follow the anti-discrimination statutes on the basis of sexual orientation, you do not have the right to deny service to gay people, even if they are using your product for their "gay" purposes.

quote:

---

The rest is none of your business if you can't figure it out yourself.

---

Oh, I have figured it out. I'm simply requesting you be honest and say it out loud.

quote:

---

Obviously you missed what I said about race.

---

Then indulge me and say it again.Still waiting on your answer, Faith:How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?

Faith still avoids the direct questions:

quote:

---

What is your problem?

---

Bigotry.Especially when it is expressly forbidden by statute and the Constitution.

quote:

---

Christians don't care what the US government says if it contradicts God's word.

---

Christians may not believe in the Constitution, but the Constitution believes in them. And if they violate its guidelines for how society is to be run, they will suffer the consequences.Render unto Caesar that which is due Caesar, Faith.

quote:

---

Why can't you follow a simple argument?

---

Because your argument makes no sense. It presumes that your opinion overrides the Constitution.

quote:

---

Your opinion means NOTHING.

---

I think that was precisely my argument to you just now.The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And just as the Christians tried to get around the law regarding discrimination against blacks by saying their religious beliefs prevented them from serving black people ("race-mixing" and all that...you *do* recall the Loving v. Virginia case, yes?) they were slapped down because no, your religious beliefs don't get to deny other people's rights.If it's bogus when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

And neither does the Supreme Court's opinion.

---

I believe you will find that the Constitution says that the Supreme Court's opinion is the only one that matters.

quote:

---

They are in the wrong.

---

You can believe that, but it doesn't mean anything unless you can justify it.Still waiting on your answer, Faith:How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?

New Cat's Eye responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Woolworth's was justified in their refusal to serve black people at the lunch counter?

---

Ha ha. No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out.

---

Strange how that didn't happen. Woolworth's still refused to serve black people.So since we know that "capitalists and a free market" don't actually sort it out, what do we do then?Dream for this mythical city of "Capitalism" where people are never bigoted?Of course, there's still the problem that even if people are willing to accept anybody's money, they're still going to be racist and keep those who aren't white from getting an education, a job, housing, etc., etc.Exactly how does capitalism end slavery? As we have seen, it's actually one of the biggest proponents of it. How much more money can you make when you don't have to pay your employees?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange how all those capitalists seemed to think that the money of Jews and blacks wasn't any good.

---

Where?

---

Here in the US.Are you saying you don't understand the reference to Woolworth's and lunch counters?Black people's money wasn't good enough.Are you seriously claiming you don't understand that the US has a long history of denying Jews access to various services?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So we seem to have a problem: You think the world is populated with these automatons known as "capitalists," but that seems to conflict with the reality that the world is instead populated by things known as "humans" and they are known to be bigots.

---

Even a bigoted capitalist will take your money, or if not, they'll go out of business.

---

And yet, a simple inspection of reality trivially shows your claim to be false. Bigoted capitalists make tons of money. Look at Trump.Have you forgotten that he was sued regarding his discrimination against blacks in housing?How is it that Woolworth's managed to even be a business capable of refusing to serve black people if they went out of business for refusing to serve black people?The history of the US is nothing but a real-world example of how bigoted capitalists make huge profits and how their bigotry doesn't stop them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So what do we as a society do with that fact?

---

Yelp.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

We don't need federal laws to figure this out.

---

So why did we fight a Civil War and have to create a Constitutional amendment recognizing the rights of people regardless of race? We were a capitalist society. How could there possibly be any racism of any kind? I mean, it's been more than 200 years, for crying out loud. When is the wonderful invisible hand of the free market finally going to do its job and end racism?

quote:

---

Yup, that's a totalitarian tactic. I'm just saying we don't need it.

---

So Woolworth's should be allowed to deny service to black people?A restaurant should be allowed to serve spoiled food?And considering that we're a democracy and these laws were enacted via the democratic process, exactly how is it "totalitarian"? Methinks you're about to spout some Libertarian claptrap where you demand all the rights and privileges of a democracy but refuse to accept any of the responsibilities. Rights for you, screw everybody else. You got yours and everybody else can go pound sand.We as a society agreed to these regulations.You agreed to follow those regulations when you signed the social contract by accepting citizenship.If you are unhappy with the regulations, you have many options:1) Grumble but just accept it.
2) Attempt to change the regulations (we have these things called "elections"...perhaps you've heard of them?...we just had one. It helps keep down the bloodshed that comes when people try to change them by initiation of force.)
3) Leave.Just because you don't like the regulations that govern your life doesn't mean you're a victim of some totalitarian dictatorship. No man is an island. You accepted citizenship of this country and thus, you are bound to follow its laws. You agreed to be bound by those regulations. You don't get to whine about "initiation of force" because the contract you voluntarily and willfully signed requires you to do something you don't want to do.But like I said, that's Libertarian claptrap. Contracts only mean something if you're the aggrieved party demanding somebody else do something for you. As soon as you're the one with an obligation, it's "tyranny!"

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your bigotry is showing.

---

So's yours.

---

Nice try.I'm going to ask you nicely:Please, let us not play dumb.Fighting against racism is not racism against racists.
Fighting against bullying is not bullying the bullies.
Fighting against discrimination is not discrimination against those who discriminate.
Fighting against bigotry is not bigotry against the bigoted.Woolworth's was justified in their refusal to serve black people at the lunch counter?You *do* have the right to deny people on the basis of race, sex, religion, marital status, veteran status, etc.?Those are yes-or-no questions, New.I noticed you seemed to be unable to actually answer them.

New Cat's Eye responds to Modulous:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And when most of your customers will take their business elsewhere if you allow black people or gays to patronize your establishment, then the invisible hand in Capitalism will in fact reinforce the problem, not fix it.

---

Is that happening?

---

Yes.It's why we have anti-discrimination laws in the first place. The very thing you said couldn't happen in your mythical fantasyland of "Capitalism" was actually rampant.And, in fact, capitalism made it worse.

New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:

---

Today, we have near instantaneous communication between practically all of the potential patrons of an establishment, and if there is even a hint of bigotry the public jumps all over the business and calls them out.

---

Except that isn't true.And it isn't helpful when there is only one provider of a service. In many areas of this country, for example, the only hospital in town is a Catholic-run institution.So how are you going to get your birth control prescription?When every hotel decides to deny lodging to black people, which was common in the Jim Crow South, where are the black people supposed to go?It's cute how you think Yelp is the answer...considering that the the Negro Motorist Green Book wasn't able to do it.Again, it's been more than 200 years. Exactly when is the wonderful invisible hand of the free market going to get off its ass and end racism?

quote:

---

We really don't need a state giving us laws in order to figure this out.

---

Except the entire history of the United States is a trivially disproves that assertion. We need not only the state to give us laws, we need a vigorous enforcement of it in order to "figure this out."

quote:

---

Also, racial segregation was mandated by the state by law.

---

Nice try.Why were the segregation laws passed? What had just happened?After all, the great fantasyland of "Capitalism" should have immediately seen that all those black citizens were just a great untapped market waiting to be exploited. So how on earth did we end up with mandatory segregation with all those good Capitalists running around in control of everything?

quote:

---

It wasn't just a bunch of mean ol' capitalists trying to limit their business opportunities.

---

Actually, that's precisely what it was.Are you about to invoke "No True Capitalist"?

Still waiting on your answer, Faith:How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

There is no lie where the question was understood to be about the campaign. That was the same thing Sessions was accused of. He answered truthfully according to the question as he understood it.

---

That's a lie, Faith, and you know it because I posted the video of the interaction between Franken and Sessions here in Message 523. Here it is again: Take a good look at what Franken asks, Frank.Notice how he isn't asking if Sessions had any contact with Russian agents. He's asking what Sessions would do if he discovered that members of the Trump campaign had contact with the Russians.Sessions then volunteers on his own that he never had any contact with the Russians.So how on earth can you claim that he "answered truthfully according to the question as he understood it"? He wasn't asked if he had contact with the Russians. He was asked what he would do if he found out someone else had contact with the Russians.So when we find out that he did have contact with the Russians at least two times (and once during the Republican National Convention around the time that the Republican platform was being altered to remove their statements about the Ukraine and thus become more friendly to Russia...and remember that Sessions was Trump's foreign policy advisor), to claim that he "answered the question" is simply false. He was never asked if he had contact with the Russians.He volunteered that information on his own.

quote:

---

Liberals know all this, know that it's common to meet with Russians and others, for them and Republicans both.

---

Yep.Which is why it's so odd for someone who has legitimate reasons to talk to Russians to claim that he's never talked to them. If you know you've talked to the Russians and you know that your contact with them was in your capacity as a Senator, why lie about it? That's why Trump's attempt to tar Schumer fell so flat: The pictures were of a public meeting between Schumer and Putin regarding the selling of a gas station that was owned by a Russian company...which Schumer did not deny. They were in physical proximity, but there was no conversation between them and any words they did share were recorded by the press.And Schumer didn't lie about it. He didn't say that he never met Putin. And he certainly didn't make that claim when asked an unrelated question.This is just you on your foolishness as usual, trying to dumb up everything, even if you have to lie. You try to make it look like nothing happened to people who don't know anything about this stuff, when it's nothing of the sort.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

Put it in a brief sentence or stick to one link with a brief sentence of commentary. Not only do I find most of what you say stupid and irrelevant, you write too much.

---

Read: You're absolutely right, but I can't think of any way to deny it, so I'll just ignore it all and claim that it's "stupid and irrelevant."Franken didn't ask Sessions if he met with the Russians.Sessions volunteered that information on his own. And it turns out that it was a lie.Thus, any claim that Sessions "honestly answered the question" is a lie.Follow the link, Faith, and watch it for yourself. It's been presented to you twice. Why do you refuse?

New Cat's Eye responds to me:

quote:

---

Well yeah, that was the law.

---

And who wrote that law? Socialists? Communists?Oh...that's right. Capitalists did.

quote:

---

It wasn't evil bigoted capitalist hating that black money.

---

Oh, yes, it was.Are you about to invoke "No True Capitalist"?

quote:

---

A capitalist will go to racism when their clientele demands it with their wallet, not because they're trying to not take money.

---

Yep. You are.

quote:

---

We know that it won't sort it out when the state is involved and preventing them.

---

And as the history of the US trivially shows, that's completely backwards. Capitalism actually made things worse. It was only when the state got involved that things got better.

quote:

---

Further, it wasn't a hit the their hearts that caused Woolworth's to start serving blacks, it was the hit to their wallet

---

No, it was the publicity. The sit-ins weren't a one off. It started with just four people in a single lunch counter. They were refused.The next day, 20 people showed up. TV cameras and newspaper reports covered it.The third day, it was 60 people and corporate made a statement saying they would continue to segregate.The fourth day, 300 people took part.Within a week, the movement had spread to other towns.Now, here's a question for you, since I know you're going to say, "that was the law."What did those original four people do before they went to the lunch counter?That's right...they bought some toothpaste.From the desegregated counter.At the end, six months later, Woolworth's desegregated the lunch counter. How could they do that if the law required them to do so?And why was it that the Greensboro store desegregated but the ones in Nashville and Jackson stayed segregated for another five years?

quote:

---

People are going to be bigoted, capitalists are going to go for the money despite their bigotry.

---

No True Capitalist.

quote:

---

Which requires them taking it, that is, they are providing the service.

---

And yet, they aren't taking it from people whose money isn't apparently good enough for them.Wait...I forgot...No True Capitalist, right?

quote:

---

That's the issue, not whether or not people are secretly thinking bigoted thoughts while they're taking your food order.

---

(*chuckle*)It's cute how you think you're thoughts are being legislated.

quote:

---

Have a state that passes laws making the capitalists be racist.

---

Except the history of the United States trivially shows that not to be the case. Even when there were no laws mandating segregation, there was still racism. Capitalists were routinely engaged in racist activity and the capitalism made it even worse.Wait...I forgot...No True Capitalist, right?

quote:

---

You're never going to "end racism" in the sense of people not being "a racist";

---

Not as a direct consequence, no. I'm sorry, but you're so precious when you think your thoughts are being legislated.No, the law can't make you think anything. But by requiring you to engage with the public when you open up a public accommodation, you will learn, albeit slowly and only as a side effect, that the people you were insisting were the devil incarnate actually aren't which may lead to the possibility of considering that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong to think so in the first place.

quote:

---

The free market can end racist practices though.

---

It never has before. In fact, the free market has always made it worse. What makes this time different?

quote:

---

lol that's silly.

---

But that's what you're advocating: No laws to regulate the actions of a business. Just as a business should be allowed to refuse service to black people because the "free market will end racist practices," then a resataurant should be allowed to serve spoiled food because "the free market will end disease-spreading practices."If you get to be protected from a proprietor doling out salmonella, why don't you get to be protected from a proprietor doling out racism?

quote:

---

It's the tactic of looking to the feds to provide people's thoughts and behaviors through force of law.

---

(*chuckle*)It's cute how you think your thoughts are being legislated.

quote:

---

That your immediate response to 'we don't need this' is: "But how are we going to end racism?" shows your totalitarian nature.

---

That you think legal regulation to prevent discrimination is "totalitarian" shows your bigoted nature.We've been through this before:Stopping bullies is not bullying the bullies.
Stopping intolerance is not intolerant of the intolerant.
Stopping bigots is not bigotry against the bigoted.

quote:

---

That's because you're prejudiced.

---

Oh, looks like we need to add another:Stopping prejudice is not prejudicial against the prejudiced.

quote:

---

Oh, I'm able. I'm just unwilling.

---

Which is very telling. You know the flaw in your argument, so you'll avoid any questions that point it out.

quote:

---

You're just being passive-aggressive because your bigotry caused you to pre-judged me and think that inane questions were pertinent to the position that I must be taking. Turns out you were wrong about me.

---

Turns out I nailed you.This whine of yours is precisely proof positive.

New Cat's Eye responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's cute how you think you're thoughts are being legislated.

---

I actually said the opposite of that.

---

Did you or did you not write the following (Message 331) Why bring up "bigoted thoughts"? I certainly didn't mention it. Anti-discrimination law certainly doesn't pretend to be able to tell people what to think let alone try. So where did this idea that we were talking about what the proprietor thinks come from? Where did this idea that those of us who advocate for anti-discrimination law are trying to use the law with regard to thought?Later in that same message: Emphasis added.There's that claim about regulating thought again. And this time it's a direct claim that anti-discrimination law has some sort of goal, purpose, or effect of telling people what to think.But, let's go on: Message 293: Once again, you make a claim about regulating thought. Again, you are indicating that anti-discrimination law has some sort of goal, purpose, or effect of telling people what to think...and using that word "totalitarian" again. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.So rather than me being "so wrong about what you think that it's too much," the reality of the situation is that I have you pegged.So, of course, you run away. You're too dishonest and prejudiced to even defend your own arguments.

New Cat's Eye responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why bring up "bigoted thoughts"?

---

​

I was saying that's what the law is *not* for.

---

And nobody ever said or even implied that it was. In fact, those who fight for the law go out of their way to denounce any attempt to use the law to police anybody's thoughts.So why bring up "bigoted thoughts"?You're the one who brought it up. You're the one who needs to explain why you did. Suppose we're having a discussion about quantum physics. You then complain that it doesn't explain the use of the preterit in Spanish.Well, of course it doesn't. Nobody said it did. Nobody even implied that it did. So why would you bring it up if you didn't think it had something to do with it?Nobody brought up "bigoted thoughts." Nobody said the law could do anything about them. Nobody even implied that it did. So why would you bring it up if you didn't think it had something to do with it?

quote:

---

There I was talking about the Obama guidelines for Title IX.

---

Ah, you misquote yourself. Here's what you said: Emphasis added.You will note that whether or not you were discussing Title IX is irrelevant since Title IX doesn't have anything to do with how you think. And yet, here you are complaining about how the government is "providing you with how to think."So once again, we have to wonder: Why did you bring it up? Nothing in Title IX is about how you think. It doesn't even hint that it has anything to do with it. It avoids the topic of thought altogether. So why would you bring it up unless you thought it had something to do with it?

quote:

---

That people were freaking out when they were rescinded looks like they were upset that the feds weren't telling them how to think anymore.

---

No, it didn't.It looked like they were upset that people like Gavin Grimm would no longer have the protection of the law. And, indeed, there is a very real chance that he won't. The SCOTUS just kicked his case back down to the lower court precisely and specifically because of the new guidelines.The guidelines didn't tell anybody how to think. It said that Title IX includes transgender individuals with regard to protections based on sex.Now, you say that Title IX does that already. How is that not telling people how to think while an express statement that Title IX applies to trans is?

quote:

---

That, to me, seems totalitarian in nature.

---

Huh? If we just assume it to be true, it's not "totalitarian" but if we expressly describe what we mean, it is?You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.So, rather than me being "so wrong about what you think that it's too much," the reality is that I have you pegged.So, of course, you run away, trying to say that when you talked about the government "providing you with how to think," you weren't talking about the government, you know, "providing you with how to think."Keep digging.