Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,104 Year: 5,361/9,624 Month: 386/323 Week: 26/204 Day: 2/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Arizona: Showing America how to avoid thinking since 1912
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 397 (720694)
02-26-2014 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
02-26-2014 1:30 PM


Next up, Illinois.
Nah, we even allow gay marriage now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 02-26-2014 1:30 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 397 (720742)
02-27-2014 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ringo
02-27-2014 10:53 AM


Re: Such a groundswell of opinion against freedom of religion
No, it's called a business license. You abide by the rules of the community, not your own rules; otherwise you don't do business in the community.
But if that community over there wants to discriminate, and then everyone else says that they cannot do that, then are we still being communital?
When we've lost our commonality with them, aren't they less a part of our community?
Can you really force people into a "community"?
A very large number of local restaurants have staff members from India, who are vegetarians. By your standard it would be almost impossible to be served meat in a restaurant here (and the restaurantrs would promptly go out of business).
Then fuck 'em, let them pass their stupid law and let the businesses that discriminate go out of business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 02-27-2014 10:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2014 12:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 02-28-2014 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 397 (720746)
02-27-2014 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by NoNukes
02-27-2014 12:25 PM


Re: Such a groundswell of opinion against freedom of religion
No, but can you use the force of law to allow people to be excluded from the community?
I'm not sure I follow.
Are you saying:
1. Person A wants to exclude Person B from their community.
2. Person C does not want to allow Person A to exclude Person B from their community.
3. The law allows Person A to exclude Person B
C. Person C is forced to allow Person A to exclude Person B.
Am I getting that right?
Why does Person B want to be with Person A if they don't want them in? And why does Person C care so much to force Person A to let Person B in? Why don't Person B and Person C get together and tell Person A to fuck off and then go form their own community without Person A? Why force Person A to accept the both of you? Why not just leave Person A in the dust?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2014 12:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2014 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 397 (720751)
02-27-2014 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
02-27-2014 1:28 PM


Re: Such a groundswell of opinion against freedom of religion
Then fuck 'em, let them pass their stupid law and let the businesses that discriminate go out of business.
Sure. Just look at how well that worked in the South with segregation. Oh wait . . .
Saw that one coming from a mile away. This is nothing like that.
Black people had no option. They had no Yelp apps. They had no voice. They needed the help.
Its different today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 1:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 397 (720771)
02-27-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
02-27-2014 4:04 PM


Re: Such a groundswell of opinion against freedom of religion
There's a lot more businesses and people have ways of instantly communicating which ones will accept them or not.
If this was back then, black people would have almost nowhere to go.
Given that this is today, gay people will have almost no one discriminating against them.
There's only going to be a handful of businesses that want to discriminate, and then people will go on Yelp, or whatever, and call them out and then everyone else will stop going there and they will go out of business.
The way I see it: good riddance.
Not allowing them to discriminate will keep them out of sight and still in business. Why would you want to include those people in the community? Fuck 'em. Let them discriminate and go out of business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 4:04 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 02-27-2014 5:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 397 (720774)
02-27-2014 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taq
02-27-2014 4:09 PM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
It allows a business owner to deny service to anyone if it goes against their deeply held religious beliefs. This means that you could have stores that ban catholics, delis that won't bake cakes for interracial couples, wedding planners that will refuse service to Catholics, etc. It is an open license for people to use their businesses as a cudgel for their bigotry.
How many businesses do you think are going to turn down money?
Why would they expose their bigotry to the public and face the backlash?
For the ones that do, lets let them make themselves known so we can shun them and stop supporting their businesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 4:09 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 397 (720780)
02-27-2014 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
02-27-2014 4:37 PM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
Your argument boils down to this. It is ok to have a pro-bigotry bill because no one will actually take advantage of it. That seems like a really poor argument to me.
You forgot the part where the ones who do expose themselves for who they are and the rest of us get to make them go out of business.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 4:37 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ooh-child, posted 02-27-2014 4:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2014 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 397 (720786)
02-27-2014 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ooh-child
02-27-2014 4:56 PM


Re: Let's limit this discussion to the specifics
CS, have you met Mr. Rand Paul?
Never heard of him.
He also thought that bad publicity would force these businesses to close. Didn't really work out that way, did it?
Back then? Of course not.
Today? For sure it would work.
For one, there's plenty of other options for people. For two, most people today do not tolerate discrimination. For three, we can instantly communicate to an enormous amount of people which businesses to boycott. Haven't you seen all the shit happening because of Yelp reviews?
There really is no comparison to the Civil Rights era. Like, at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ooh-child, posted 02-27-2014 4:56 PM ooh-child has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 5:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2014 5:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 104 by xongsmith, posted 02-27-2014 10:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 397 (720804)
02-27-2014 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Theodoric
02-27-2014 5:11 PM


Re: Such a groundswell of opinion against freedom of religion
There are such things as what is right for society and what stands constitutional muster.
Oh, sure, the law was totally unconstitutional.
Society has matured a lot in the last 10 years on issues of race, sexual orientation and immigrants.
That's what I'm saying. That's why these 1950's race comparisons are stupid.
This law back fired on the bigots because society has reached the point that as a whole we do not countenance overt state sanctioned bigotry.
Maybe you should consider it because...
These are baby steps but strong steps forcing the bigots further to the margins of society.
Maybe instead of forcing them to the margins, you can eliminate them from business altogether.
But your gonna need to identify them.
What better way than allowing them to shout their bigotry from the rooftops. Then you can pick them off as you spot them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 02-27-2014 5:11 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 5:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 397 (720812)
02-27-2014 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taq
02-27-2014 5:28 PM


Re: Such a groundswell of opinion against freedom of religion
If anti-gay discrimination is a thing of the past, how is it that an elected state legislature would have the votes to pass a pro-discrimination bill?
From the OP:
quote:
Another shining example of the intelligence currently in residence in our State Senate is the fact that three Republicans have come forward saying they just voted yes because of limited time and explanation about the scope of the Bill. Had these three voted how they now, less than one week later, say they should have, the measure would have lost in the Senate 16-14. Instead, because of the strong right in AZ, they bowed to the party and now have to try and save face before upcoming elections.
They're not reading the bills and just voted for them because their party proposed it.
That they have to renege to save face implies that most of their voters are not for the bill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 5:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Taq, posted 02-27-2014 5:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2014 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024