Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

Perhaps you shouldn't work in a service-providing industry, then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet you have no problem with people who have no governing authority forcing you to work for people you don't want to work for?

Try it this way: Ask the waitress at your neighborhood pub if she likes "working for" all the customers she "works for".

Here's another one: Imagine for a moment that you are a Christian. You walk into, say, a bookstore. You are told, "We do not serve your kind here". Would you object?

Now, here's the catch: What if I'm not refusing you because you are a "Christian", but because I believe the graven image in your crucifix is idolatry, and therefore violative of the Christianity you proclaim, and the simple fact is that if I suspect one is a hypocrite, I will refuse service?

And set the First Amendment aside for a moment, because in truth it really isn't in play here. My own protected outlook under freedom of religion does not prohbit, and specifically endorses, homosexual life partnerships. Yet a Christian should be able to impose his or her religion on me? The reason I say the First isn't in play here is because it has always been a reasonable argument, just one refused by a majority that defines religion in a different, observably self-serving way. The Christian push against homosexuals has always been a religious infringement, and the root of this is what Christians perceive under threat. For many Christians, the prospect of equality is horrifying. Why? Because they are losing privilege. The expectation that they should be merely equal to their neighbors is argued as a violation of their equality.

Besides, this religious freedom thing is now to the point that Texas is preparing to protect those who force child victims of sexual abuse to carry pregnancies. So ... no, I just don't buy all that deliberately dishonest bullshit about religious freedom empowering discrimnation.

Between your hatred and the love you so fear, there is a middle ground; it is called tolerance.

You know, just put up with the fact that people unsatisfactory to your bigoted demands exist in society. They do the same every day, enduring you.

Actually, it kind of is. I mean, I know a lot of people would at this point resort to complaining about the idea of a business license, but those are also the people who pretend that those who would endanger others for the sake of a quick buck would suddenly behave altruistically. No, really, it's easy to say, "Well, those people would go out of business", but while y'all are complaining about state interference, you don't seem to care much about private sector intrusions. With the public trust, we can at least demand fulfillment of the social contract; with private industry, the only social contract is the bottom line, and despite the lies they tell us about benefit to the community.

In the end, though, all you're asking is that the state license discrimination. Christians can hide behind the First Amendment all they want, but that doesn't mean their bullying isn't bullying. Calling oneself "Christian" might seem like grounds for entitlement, but one doesn't get to take that out of other people.

When religious freedom requires others to sit by while you go out of your way to hurt people, we're doing it wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fortunately you are not. You can always quit. Slaves can't.

Agreed. You are free to do that. Of course you may have to live with the consequences of your actions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once this makes clear that by "forcing" you simply have in mind insisting that a volitionally signed contract will be fulfilled, no. Of course, every contract contains parts which one of the sides does not really like to do - else, there would be no necessity for a contract, because everything would be done in the same way without the contract.

Of course, not.

The catch does not work anyway. If you would have read what I have written, this should have been clear to you. If I'm told that there is no interest to serve me, I will leave.

No. The gay goes out of the shop of the religious fanatic, he can continue his homosexual life without problem.

The problem with the partnership is simply that the state - means with taxpayers money, including gay taxpayers - supports families. But possibly not gay partnerships. This is IMHO the problem - there should be no such support. Supporting particular ways of life financially is something which should be left to religious organizations.

Sounds like you think that I hate homosexuals and fear homosexual love or so. Not at all. I simply defend the freedom of people even if I don't like them. Because the defense of freedom is a common interest. If I participate in the creation of a totalitarian society because those suppressed are (initially) those I despise or hate, I destroy my own freedom.

I don't.

I defend religious freedom as a well as freedom of speech and freedom of discrimination in any private contracts. Especially the last freedom is essential for a free society too, and under heavy attack today. Freedom of speech too - all this "hate speech" is directed against this basic freedom.

Never forget: If one plans to restrict basic freedoms for everybody, one will not explain this to everybody. No. One makes a choice - a minority hated and despised by the moral majority - and starts the restriction of this freedom with the freedom of this minority. Once this was successful, what remains is to extend the restrictions step by step.

 

If in this case I have to take extraordinary costs, which I would not have to face in a free society, this would be a sort of partial slavery.

I would be forbidden to do reasonable and non-harmful things, which would allow me to make my living, to force me to do the things I hate. Ok, there remains an important difference to full-scale slavery. A sort of partial slavery.

Fine. This would include loosing this customer. As well as his friends, and, possibly, everybody who follows their recommendations to boycott me. I could continue my shop, possibly with less customers - but, possibly, even with more customers, because there may be a lot of customers who prefer shops where they do not have to meet this type of people. These would be the consequences in a free society

It would not include the consequences of his friends obstructing and inhibiting the access of other customers to my shop by violent means. It would not include government coming and closing my shop. These would be the consequences in a totalitarian society.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't work in everything except a prisoners camp of your police state, then?

What moral right you have to forbid me to provide services to people I want to provide services, and who want to receive my services?

 

The debate is, all the non-procreative sexual orientations, want everyone too like and accept them for what they feel and believe, but they don't think they have to like and accept anyone who does not like or accept them. There is a dual standard here, which perpetuates a problem. If someone is taken back by homosexuality, they have as much control over that as a gay has of being homosexual. Why does only one side have to accept the other and other side can be disrespectful and why is that called fairness?

The analogy is a mother has a wild child who is very noisy and disrespectful. The mother and child wants everyone to love him/her, but they also want her child to be wild and even get on people's nerve, with them not able to say anything, bad. This equation is messed up and will never work. The brat child and his mother has to meet them half way.

If all the non-procreative sexual orientations, would hide who they are in public; don't ask or tell, so everyone can just see people and not gay costumes, most religious people would treat you as human. It is the costume that is the problem. The diva has to do a glamour shot and all need to applaud.

A heterosexual male who defines himself by his sexuality, first; lounge lizard, is treated the same way by religious people. He has chosen to narrowly define himself as a fraction of a man, with that fraction not something defined by character. He is a shady character in the play of life. Not everyone is entertained by this and characters in a play should not expect applause and diva treatment, all the time.

Religion does not single out groups, but characters; narrowly defined humans, who define themselves by one of many obsessions. This is not a real human. My advice is take off the mask and be a human with character; neutral human. Don't be a character that needs the audience to love you, while you insult their choices.

 

Well, I have to pay more for a car because it has seatbelts. Doesn't make me a slave, partial or otherwise.

No one is forcing you to do the things you hate.

Yes, you might suffer that as well.

No, it would be the consequences of living in a society that operates under the rule of law.

You might want to sell poison to children. You might feel you have the right to do that, and that you make excellent poison, and that there are too many children anyway. You could decide that being denied the right to do that makes you a slave. You could even try to do so. If you did, you would then have to live with the consequences of your actions, since we live under the rule of law.

 

The part is quite small in this case. But this does not change the principle. Once I'm forced to pay for what I would not pay otherwise, I'm robbed. Once this robbery is a permanent one, established by government, it is a form of slavery.

Imposing penalties on me for not doing the things I hate is a form of forcing me. Of course, it may be a quite mild form. But it remains force.

Rule of law may be totalitarian, if the law is totalitarian. Rule of law may be unjust, and is unjust, if the law is unjust.

You construct an extremal artificial example to obtain some case where a law which forbids to sell something to somebody else is just.

It seems, you do this to justify arbitrary laws forbidding volitional contracts between people, in other words, to justify a totalitarian police state. Not?

 

So people who would prefer gasoline was cheaper, but are forced to pay a higher price, are slaves?

(In general, I dislike such hyperbole. "Being forced to pay too much is slavery! Being forced to see pornographic art is rape! Fur is murder!" People who say such things, in general, are clueless as to what slavery, murder and rape actually mean.)

Yes, and that's true whether the force comes from society (as in your example) from your family or from the government,

Good; you admit where there are cases where laws forbidding (or requiring) you to do something are just. Now the question devolves to - is this one of those cases?

 

Ok, here you have a point. And there is, of course, the danger of misuse - of type once all this behaviour is anyway slavery, it makes no difference if we reintroduce slavery.

Yes. And the answer is quite obvious: Not.

Because a just application of force is one justified by the Golden Rule. With a penalty which does not exaggerate the biblical upper bound: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Thus, if one refuses to make a contract with somebody else, you have to right to refuse to make a contract with him. A right which you have anyway in a free society.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave

no your not. being told you can't discriminate against others doesn't make you a slave. saying your a slave because you can't legally discriminate against others how ever quit probably makes you a jack ass

 

all 20 of them have variatians of the same fucking idea. there is no choice or independent people. everyone is beholden to the approved ideology.

um there are other dems running than hillary. the dems are the only major party offering new ideas. between her and bernie there is a wider range of ideas than the entire clusterfuck of republicans

um the dems have more people away from the party line. the republican party is well known for its ability to force people to to the line. as usual you have every thing ass backwards. I can't tell if your honestly that devorced from reality or attempting to be political troll and just failling at epically?

 

If I'm told that I can't discriminate it means I have to live completely abstinent or to become a sex slave of everybody. That's why I defend the right to discriminate.

And not only for the choice of sexual partners, but also for the choice of all partners - even only short term business partners.

If defending such a basic freedom as the right of discrimination in my personal as well as business relations makes me a jack ass, so be it. I prefer to be called a jack ass and being a freedom fighter than to be called a good man fighting but fighting for a totalitarian regime.

 

your not a freedom fighter. your a delusional hate monger who thinks thanks to your religion your better than those with whom you disagree with.
i'm sorry but being told you can't dicriminate doesn't make you a slave. if you want to operate in the public sphere you follow the rules which is you don't get to discriminate.

just WTF no it fucking doesn't. having to treat someone the same as everyone else doesn't mean you have to have sex with them. you defend the right to discriminate because your bigot. your anti freedom though just like every other bigot.

 

I've been debating scientific issues with this bloke, and always thought there was a religious agenda afoot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks for presenting yourself as somebody who makes personal attacks related with "your religion" without even knowing if I follow a religion at all.

As a consistent freedom fighter, I fight also for the freedom of those people who will use these freedoms in inappropriate ways.

If the "public sphere" would be only those buildings which are owned by the state, no problem - everybody is free to decide about the rules of behaviour on his property.

If the "public sphere" also includes my private rooms, which are simply open to visitors and friends, who want to use my services, but I'm nonetheless obliged "not to discriminate", then I'm a slave of the state with only a few remains of personal freedom.

If I have sex with one person, and I'm forbidden to discriminate, that means, I have no right to refuse sex with anybody else - such a refusal would be, certainly, discrimination, based on quite irrational personal prejudices. Of course, I know that the obligation not to discriminate does not go - yet - that far. But the principle is the same.

If I sign a contract with one person, and refuse to sign a similar contract with another one, this is discrimination.
If I make sex with one person, and refuse to have sex with another one, this is also discrimination.

One type of discrimination is forbidden, the other not. Yet. Fortunately. But the direction of the political development goes toward more and more anti-discrimination laws. And I think it is important to recognize this danger - and to accept that discrimination is a basic human right, a basic human freedom. Yes, it may be applied in not very nice ways by bigots and racists and other not very nice persons. But this is as usual - every human freedom can be misused, and the fighters against freedom always use such misuse to destroy the freedoms.

 

my apologies, I didn't realize that your weren't a hateful religious zealot and instead a person who has decided to be hateful for shits and giggles. seriously arguing that you could possibly be a worse person isn't a defense. and no its not a personal attack. just because your touchy about your bigotry doesn't make logical inferences against it a personal attack.

you aren't a freedom fighter. your trying to take freedom away from others.

the public sphere is everything open to the public like you know most businesses

do you not understand how businesses function. again not being able to discriminate doesn't make you slave. that comparison is moronic and an insult to the millions of real slaves in the world today.

no it isn't. last time i checked your genitals aren't open to the public.

again no it isn't. if i go to sign a contract to build a house on a lot and don't sign another one with some one else i'm not discriminating with them i'm merely choosing not to deal with them. again no one is saying you need to have sex with everyone. again not discrimination. but refusing to deal with a whole subset of people because of who or what they are is discrimination and illegal.

your a libertarian aren't you?

 

In this case, it is.
In general, our society follows the rule "do not restrict something unless it has clearly been demonstrated to be harmful." So discrimination against blacks was allowed until it became clear that it was being used to justify systematic removal of their civil rights. Same for gays. Only now are they gaining the same rights we all take for granted.

Agreed. However, that right is limited, because in our history it has, on occasion, been abused by bigots, racists and zealots.

 

Nope. You can have sex with whoever you want. However, if you use that right to do harm you may find the right to do that limited by force. For example, discovering you have HIV, then having sex with people and not telling them may result in you being convicted of a crime - and if it continues, being put in jail where your ability to infect others is limited. If you consider that being a "sex slave" then you are free to pursue such fantasies.