Georgia Religious Freedom Bill

Julio3000 said:
You're a North Carolinian. What do you think about HB2?
Click to expand...

I'm a simple guy. I think it's inappropriate for a person with a penis to be in a public locker-room designated for females, no matter what that person feels about his/her DNA. If a person has had a penis removed or added, I'm a little more ambivalent.
 
sturg33 said:
No questions I guess... Just points. You keep moving past them to try to play "gotcha" on the free market thing.

Here's one...

Do business owners have any rights at all? Or must they comply with whatever the public demands?
Click to expand...

I don't really have much to say about your point of view. I think I've made my feelings about it clear in other threads.

I think the idea that there should be no laws against discrimination is the kind of libertarian utopianism that sounds great in principle but fails as soon as it's introduced to the real world. I'm glad there was civil rights legislation in past decades and I'm glad that anti-discrimination laws exist—to the extent that they do—today, particularly with respect to employment law. You disagree. Fine. I'm not "ignoring" or failing to address a point, though. I just disagree with you, and, in many cases, think that you're both wrong and naive.

As to business owners...

First, it's worth noting that I own a business that engages in public commerce, so these questions aren't purely theoretical to me.

I've never had a problem selling products or services to someone whose politics, say, are repugnant to me. I look at our ability to engage in commerce as a way of finding common ground, I guess. I've never understood the mentality of the folks who refuse to do business with a certain category of person.

So you're asking a big question that indicates an absolutist answer. Can't help you there, buddy. I do think that business owners have rights. I'm also comfortable with their rights being restricted in a variety of ways. They—WE—must comply with the public will, as expressed through legislation, to the extent that their rights aren't abridged in a way that's illegal or unconstitutional.

What do you think about local ordinances and municipal restrictions on things like signage, appearance, and parking codes? Those things restrict the rights of business owners, too, right?
 
BedellBrave said:
I'm a simple guy. I think it's inappropriate for a person with a penis to be in a public locker-room designated for females, no matter what that person feels about his/her DNA. If a person has had a penis removed or added, I'm a little more ambivalent.
Click to expand...

That's ok with me. I'm not sure that it's an issue that required emergency action by the state, though.

How about the other provisions of the bill, as they more broadly pertain to discrimination?

I'm a simple guy, too. I generally see members of the LGBT community as being more pointedly threatened in our society—whether by physical violence or by discrimination—than they pose threats.
 
Runnin said:
These new laws should be called The Cooties laws.

Ewwwww. You have cooties. You're against my religion.
Click to expand...

We went on this merry-go-round a lot during the Kim Davis thing.

I'm icked out by your sexual orientation or gender identity, therefore my thoroughly cherry-picked religious sentiment mandates a special exception to the law. Because cooties.
 
BedellBrave said:
Springsteen refused service due to his beliefs, right?
Click to expand...

no

unless you think concerts and when a person decides they want to play music is a service

which would be beyond a stretch

but i think if Ray Charles was around he would agree that someone has to take a stand on performing music in places that treat certain people as a different class of citizen
 
I got no problem with Bruce deciding not to play.

Wonder what would happen if he did so because he didn't want to play in a state that supports trans... I'm guessing a lot of folks would have a problem with that
 
goldfly said:
no

unless you think concerts and when a person decides they want to play music is a service

which would be beyond a stretch

but i think if Ray Charles was around he would agree that someone has to take a stand on performing music in places that treat certain people as a different class of citizen
Click to expand...

A musician playing a concert is actually a classic example of personal services. It's used in law schools. It was actually an example in a contract's class I was in about a situation where you cannot get a court to order specific performance (court ordering someone to fulfill a contract). The 13th amendment prevents involuntary servitude so specific performance isn't available for personal services contracts like a musician performing at a concert.
 
striker42 said:
A musician playing a concert is actually a classic example of personal services. It's used in law schools. It was actually an example in a contract's class I was in about a situation where you cannot get a court to order specific performance (court ordering someone to fulfill a contract). The 13th amendment prevents involuntary servitude so specific performance isn't available for personal services contracts like a musician performing at a concert.
Click to expand...

i got ya

i am saying that it isn't a service in the modern use of the word service imo

it isn't like going to the store to get food or gas etc is what i was saying when it comes to the term service.
 
Bruce Springsteen has a right to his deeply held beliefs. He has a right to control his business and refuse to do business with those he disagrees with. He exercised that right when he refused to serve ticket holders in Greensboro NC, for a concert he agreed to perform on April 10th., 2016. He cancelled the concert just days before he was to perform, and did so specifically because he disagreed with the beliefs of the people of North Carolina. He has that right, and so should every business person. He did so, even though he knew it would cause financial harm to those who had non-refundable hotel reservations and non-refundable airline tickets. He did so, even though he knew he was causing financial harm to people who had no control over a decision he disagreed with. Rock on Bruce! You exercised your rights as a business person and we support your right!
 
Yeah, just like there's a moral equivalency between supporters of apartheid in South Africa (because of their deeply held personal beliefs, of course) and artists who refused to perform in South Africa during the apartheid regime.

If that's the horse you want to back, feel free.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yeah, just like there's a moral equivalency between supporters of apartheid in South Africa (because of their deeply held personal beliefs, of course) and artists who refused to perform in South Africa during the apartheid regime.

If that's the horse you want to back, feel free.
Click to expand...

No... like I said - I support the business' (Springsteen) right to refuse to service

If you want to throw the straw man out there... have at it. But the fact is - this guy is refusing to provide his product to paying customers of the public based on his personal beliefs.

You seem to support him. I do too.

I'm just consistent.
 
sturg33 said:
No... like I said - I support the business' (Springsteen) right to refuse to service

If you want to throw the straw man out there... have at it. But the fact is - this guy is refusing to provide his product to paying customers of the public based on his personal beliefs.

You seem to support him. I do too.

I'm just consistent.
Click to expand...

Sure, man, have at it.

You might--justly, perhaps--be proud of that consistency. I'm more inclined to take the Emersonian approach towards it, but you do you.

I would be interested, as a thought experiment, to hear your ideas about how the latter half of the last century would've broken down with regards to civil rights if we'd left everything to the market.
 
Julio3000 said:
Sure, man, have at it.

You might--justly, perhaps--be proud of that consistency. I'm more inclined to take the Emersonian approach towards it, but you do you.

I would be interested, as a thought experiment, to hear your ideas about how the latter half of the last century would've broken down with regards to civil rights if we'd left everything to the market.
Click to expand...

As a thought experiment... I don't know.

My views would have never allowed it to happen in the first place.

I don't like hypotheticals where you can say "hey - suppose we screwed up everything entirely... then tell me how your ideas would be able to fix it"

An argument can certainly be made that government intervention was necessary in order to expedite race acceptance in this country. I can't prove otherwise. But what I am extraordinarily confident about is that "no blacks allowed" would never fly today... the market would crush it like a bug. Neither would "no gays allowed"

And as far as I can tell... nobody is suggesting anything of the sort... I don't think it's out of line to allow a business to say to a customer if providing the service made him.her feel icky. It doesn't have to be religious... it can be anything. You heard about this Bruce fellow?
 
But before we move on can you at least admit that you're picking and choosing which social intolerances you're willing to tolerate form private businesses?

i.e. - when you agree with them, no big deal. When you disagree with them, we need a supreme court ruling?

Where are we on Olivia Cruises?
 
People showing their true . . . ahem, colors.

It's a shame our culture doesn't have an underlying philosophy or dominant code of conduct that would move people to behave more compassionately towards one another.
 
sturg33 said:
As a thought experiment... I don't know.

My views would have never allowed it to happen in the first place.

I don't like hypotheticals where you can say "hey - suppose we screwed up everything entirely... then tell me how your ideas would be able to fix it"

An argument can certainly be made that government intervention was necessary in order to expedite race acceptance in this country. I can't prove otherwise. But what I am extraordinarily confident about is that "no blacks allowed" would never fly today... the market would crush it like a bug. Neither would "no gays allowed"

And as far as I can tell... nobody is suggesting anything of the sort... I don't think it's out of line to allow a business to say to a customer if providing the service made him.her feel icky. It doesn't have to be religious... it can be anything. You heard about this Bruce fellow?
Click to expand...

Your views would never have allowed it to happen in the first place? You might have to elaborate on that for me.

You may very well be correct about what may or may not fly today. But you're the one espousing a universal and systemic answer to everything. I'm merely asking how that system would apply to the real world, not so very long ago. Do you really think that "no blacks allowed" wouldn't fly anywhere, or do you think it has at least something to do with the fact that it's been illegal for a couple of generations? Can your worldview only exist in a frictionless universe with no history or context?

Anyway, this is the luxury of a libertarian. You can sit and point out all of the flaws in the present day which would be remedied by your ideology, but you can't apply it to a particular snapshot of history because you don't like hypotheticals of that kind. Guess what? Your entirety of your socio-political belief system is a hypothetical where you can say "hey - suppose we screwed up everything entirely... then tell me how your ideas would be able to fix it."
 
sturg33 said:
But before we move on can you at least admit that you're picking and choosing which social intolerances you're willing to tolerate form private businesses?

i.e. - when you agree with them, no big deal. When you disagree with them, we need a supreme court ruling?

Where are we on Olivia Cruises?
Click to expand...

Sure we can. If your idea is to contrast your consistent point of view with my lack of same, I plead guilty. I admit that I believe that certain kinds of discrimination rise to a level of perniciousness that invites legal action.

You seem to think that Olivia Cruises represents some kind of epic burn here. It reminds me the folks who get all bent out of shape about Black History Month or members of a minority group using a slur amongst themselves that would have an entirely different meaning in another context. Do they have logically consistent point, devoid of context? Sure. Is that context meaningless. Hell, no.

There are private-sector entities that are target-marketed to particular slices of society. Though I'm utopian enough to wish there were less identity politics in the world, I'm comfortable drawing a distinction between, say, Olivia Cruises (or J-Date, or Christian Mingle, or HBCUs, etc.) and colored-only drinking fountains or "No Irish Need Apply."
 
Julio3000 said:
That's ok with me. I'm not sure that it's an issue that required emergency action by the state, though.

How about the other provisions of the bill, as they more broadly pertain to discrimination?

I'm a simple guy, too. I generally see members of the LGBT community as being more pointedly threatened in our society—whether by physical violence or by discrimination—than they pose threats.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that a registered sex offender lead the charge with the Charlotte city council and that precipitated the action by the state. Everyone can still go into restrooms and showers per their plumbing.

I haven't gone over the Governor's executive order yet and the ins-and-outs. Hopefully it's helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top