Discrimination based on Politics
« on: January 19, 2017, 12:46:59 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/civilities-why-declining-to-dress-the-first-lady-isnt-like-refusing-to-bake-a-same-sex-wedding-cake/2017/01/18/1cc73a50-dd94-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html?utm_term=.7127f0099149

An interesting column that raises an interesting question:
If a baker can be forced to make a cake for a same sex couple, why can't a dress maker decline from making a Trump?

I admit it's got me questioning because on one hand, homosexuality is protected and it's your business that's being displayed when you bake a gay couple a wedding cake or make a dress for someone whose husband is a political figure you dislike.

On the other hand, one's personal views or lifestyle shouldn't decide if you do or do not do business with them.

Why is sexuality protected but political views aren't?  Couldn't one make the argument that discrimination based on political views is no different than religious views?  I mean, they're basically the same thing these days. (again)

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2017, 01:11:20 PM »
homosexuality is protected

I'm pretty sure in the United States it is not, at least not at the federal level. It is not a part of the Civil Rights Act.


On the other hand, one's personal views or lifestyle shouldn't decide if you do or do not do business with them.

Why not?

Why is sexuality protected but political views aren't?  Couldn't one make the argument that discrimination based on political views is no different than religious views?  I mean, they're basically the same thing these days. (again)

The difference between politics and religion is that the United States values freedom of religion in its first amendment. It would make sense for it to make religious belief a protected class. If the Civil Rights Act did not consider religious belief a protected class, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be unconstitutional, but it wouldn't be voted for in Congress.

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2017, 01:34:20 PM »
Why is sexuality protected but political views aren't?

Political views and ideologies in general are formed based on one's experiences and knowledge. I know the whole "nature vs. nurture" thing wrt to sexuality is kind of complicated and up for debate, but political views are without a doubt developed, not inherited. Political views aren't something you "choose," per se, but they are more subject to change than your sexuality is.

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2017, 01:45:45 PM »
Why is sexuality protected but political views aren't?

Political views and ideologies in general are formed based on one's experiences and knowledge. I know the whole "nature vs. nurture" thing wrt to sexuality is kind of complicated and up for debate, but political views are without a doubt developed, not inherited. Political views aren't something you "choose," per se, but they are more subject to change than your sexuality is.

I think Lord Dave's other point, though, is that this same argument also applies to religion, and religious belief is protected by the Civil Rights Act.

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2017, 01:50:10 PM »
Political views and ideologies in general are formed based on one's experiences and knowledge. I know the whole "nature vs. nurture" thing wrt to sexuality is kind of complicated and up for debate, but political views are without a doubt developed, not inherited. Political views aren't something you "choose," per se, but they are more subject to change than your sexuality is.

I think Lord Dave's other point, though, is that this same argument also applies to religion, and religious belief is protected by the Civil Rights Act.

Ah. Well... yeah. Religion is sort of invincible/exempt from lots of stuff in America, just cuz.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4203
  • Head Arthologist
    • View Profile
Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2017, 03:07:34 PM »
On the other hand, one's personal views or lifestyle shouldn't decide if you do or do not do business with them.

Why not?
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5866
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2017, 03:38:06 PM »
Seems like a veiled attempt to disguise their bigotry towards Slovenian people.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2017, 04:37:33 PM »
homosexuality is protected

I'm pretty sure in the United States it is not, at least not at the federal level. It is not a part of the Civil Rights Act.
It kinda is.  It was upheld as part of "sex".
https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm

It's pretty recent though.

Quote
On the other hand, one's personal views or lifestyle shouldn't decide if you do or do not do business with them.
Why not?
Because it's discrimination.  What if you kept anyone who 'looks' like a biker from entering your bar?  Or anyone who wore white after labor day?  It's silly and stupid sounding but how is that different than keeping someone who is a satanist out?  Or Muslim? 

And a business transaction should be a neutral agreement.  Yes, one will develop connections with the customers, but what the customer does or thinks privately should be irrelevant.  Why would it matter unless it damages your brand and thus isn't a good business investment? 

Quote
Why is sexuality protected but political views aren't?  Couldn't one make the argument that discrimination based on political views is no different than religious views?  I mean, they're basically the same thing these days. (again)
The difference between politics and religion is that the United States values freedom of religion in its first amendment. It would make sense for it to make religious belief a protected class. If the Civil Rights Act did not consider religious belief a protected class, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be unconstitutional, but it wouldn't be voted for in Congress.
No no, you misunderstand.  Religion is a set of rules, values, and beliefs that are arbitrary or simply "because that's the way it is" without any need for factual evidence.
Political parties aren't much different.  You have a set of 'values' that are your core and that's just the way it is.  You're a Republican or a Democrat and most people just are.  They could change but they don't.  Doesn't matter if they agree with their group, they're still (Political Party) and will defend their party against anyone who lacks belief.



Why is sexuality protected but political views aren't?

Political views and ideologies in general are formed based on one's experiences and knowledge. I know the whole "nature vs. nurture" thing wrt to sexuality is kind of complicated and up for debate, but political views are without a doubt developed, not inherited. Political views aren't something you "choose," per se, but they are more subject to change than your sexuality is.
But not your religion.  Your religion is developed and can be easily (depending on your religion) changed or dropped.  And the same thing could happen that changing your political views does: Alienation among peers, condemnation from friends and family, finding a new group who supports you.


Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2017, 05:55:09 PM »
Religion is a set of rules, values, and beliefs that are arbitrary or simply "because that's the way it is" without any need for factual evidence.
Political parties aren't much different.  You have a set of 'values' that are your core and that's just the way it is.  You're a Republican or a Democrat and most people just are.  They could change but they don't.  Doesn't matter if they agree with their group, they're still (Political Party) and will defend their party against anyone who lacks belief.

Your religion is developed and can be easily (depending on your religion) changed or dropped.  And the same thing could happen that changing your political views does: Alienation among peers, condemnation from friends and family, finding a new group who supports you.

I think Lord Dave's other point, though, is that this same argument also applies to religion, and religious belief is protected by the Civil Rights Act.

Ah. Well... yeah. Religion is sort of invincible/exempt from lots of stuff in America, just cuz.

I see the parallels you’re drawing between politics and religion, and I (for the most part) agree with them. For whatever reason though (maybe for no reason), religion is just treated differently in America. It’s one of our defining features.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4203
  • Head Arthologist
    • View Profile
Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2017, 06:10:24 PM »
Because it's discrimination.  What if you kept anyone who 'looks' like a biker from entering your bar?  Or anyone who wore white after labor day?  It's silly and stupid sounding but how is that different than keeping someone who is a satanist out?  Or Muslim?

What is wrong with any of those things? You haven't actually answered my question.

And a business transaction should be a neutral agreement.  Yes, one will develop connections with the customers, but what the customer does or thinks privately should be irrelevant.  Why would it matter unless it damages your brand and thus isn't a good business investment?

Are we talking about whether it is morally permissible, or whether it is good business sense? I assumed the former, given the premise of the thread, in which case this is irrelevant.
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1627
  • I pledge allegiance to Everything Now.
    • View Profile
Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2017, 10:56:06 PM »
Yeah, a privately-owned business should be able to turn away whomever they want. Everyone should be able to take issue with that and refuse to use that business' services in response, but that right should be there IMO.
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2017, 07:07:32 AM »
Because it's discrimination.  What if you kept anyone who 'looks' like a biker from entering your bar?  Or anyone who wore white after labor day?  It's silly and stupid sounding but how is that different than keeping someone who is a satanist out?  Or Muslim?

What is wrong with any of those things? You haven't actually answered my question.

And a business transaction should be a neutral agreement.  Yes, one will develop connections with the customers, but what the customer does or thinks privately should be irrelevant.  Why would it matter unless it damages your brand and thus isn't a good business investment?

Are we talking about whether it is morally permissible, or whether it is good business sense? I assumed the former, given the premise of the thread, in which case this is irrelevant.
That's my problem, I don't HAVE an answer because it's morality vs freedom.

Yeah, a privately-owned business should be able to turn away whomever they want. Everyone should be able to take issue with that and refuse to use that business' services in response, but that right should be there IMO.

This is one of the many things the civil rights movement fought against.  Forbidding colored didn't seem to hurt many businesses so should we go back to that?  Should we really eliminate the civil rights act?  Make discrimination legal again?
What about employment?  By this same logic, an employer should be able to reject someone for any reason, right?

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2017, 03:43:36 PM »
What about employment?  By this same logic, an employer should be able to reject someone for any reason, right?

Well, there are laws in place to protect people from discriminatory hiring practices. Similar to those in the housing market, and the laws get more ridiculous by the year. I was told by someone who rents out a couple different townhouses that you are even prohibited from discriminating against a persons income. The one thing that should be the determining factor on whether you should rent the house to that person.

Businessess should have a right to do business with whoever they want. At some point we have to start protecting the freedoms of business owners too.

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2017, 04:40:52 PM »
What about employment?  By this same logic, an employer should be able to reject someone for any reason, right?

Well, there are laws in place to protect people from discriminatory hiring practices. Similar to those in the housing market, and the laws get more ridiculous by the year. I was told by someone who rents out a couple different townhouses that you are even prohibited from discriminating against a persons income. The one thing that should be the determining factor on whether you should rent the house to that person.

Businessess should have a right to do business with whoever they want. At some point we have to start protecting the freedoms of business owners too.


Yes, a renter can not deny someone a place to live because they're poor.  As long as they can pay rent, whats it matter?

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2017, 05:51:42 PM »
What about employment?  By this same logic, an employer should be able to reject someone for any reason, right?

Well, there are laws in place to protect people from discriminatory hiring practices. Similar to those in the housing market, and the laws get more ridiculous by the year. I was told by someone who rents out a couple different townhouses that you are even prohibited from discriminating against a persons income. The one thing that should be the determining factor on whether you should rent the house to that person.

Businessess should have a right to do business with whoever they want. At some point we have to start protecting the freedoms of business owners too.


Yes, a renter can not deny someone a place to live because they're poor.  As long as they can pay rent, whats it matter?

What would be a stronger indicator on whether or not a person can pay rent besides their income? So the renter is supposed to completely expose himself, against his better judgement in the name of fairness? What's fair about that?

And you're branching off the original topic. I think it is ridiculous to make the assertion that we're on a fasttrack back to segregation just because a Christian cake shop owner might not want to make a cake for a gay wedding. There are hundreds of other shops that will gladly take the business, and either the Bible Thumpers will adapt their business model or miss the business
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 10:16:35 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 4017
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2017, 07:52:08 PM »
The left is already heading towards segregation. Lots of university campuses are offering segregated housing for students of colour that don't feel safe around white people. It's like the fucking  twilight zone.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2017, 12:10:57 AM »
What would be a stronger indicator on whether or not a person can pay rent besides their income? So the renter is supposed to completely expose himself, against his better judgement in the name of fairness? What's fair about that?
Income is irrelevant.  Should I ask how much you make when you wanna buy a Happy Meal?  No.  You either have the money or you don't.  That's why you pay rent in advance, not after.  And you have a deposit.  Maybe you have a vast trust fund.  Maybe you've saved money.  Maybe you're a drug lord?  Who cares as long as you can pay?

Quote
And you're branching off the original topic. I think it is ridiculous to make the assertion that we're on a fasttrack back to segregation just because a Christian cake shop owner might not want to make a cake for a gay wedding. There are hundreds of other shops that will gladly take the business, and either the Bible Thumpers will adapt their business model or miss the business
And I'd agree with you but we already lived through this.  Segregation did exist.  "whites only" did exist.  And the things that weren't whites only were dirty, shitty, and sucky cause that's what they had available.  You wanna open your own black serve bakery?  Well you gotta buy tools.  Oh wait, no one will SELL you tools cause you're black.  No one will rent you a store cause you're black.  And good luck getting a loan you black fucker. 

My point is, segregation has already existed and if we decide to allow it again, then is that moral?  I say it isn't.  But objectively, it shouldn't matter.  And the free market theory tells us, as you said, others will take them.
But history tells us that's a lie.  The free market doesn't work when a group of people, especially a minority group, can be restricted from said free market by the free market.



The left is already heading towards segregation. Lots of university campuses are offering segregated housing for students of colour that don't feel safe around white people. It's like the fucking  twilight zone.
And that's god damn stupid too.  It might be true but putting all the people someone hates in one location just makes them easier targets.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4203
  • Head Arthologist
    • View Profile
Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2017, 07:48:01 AM »
That's my problem, I don't HAVE an answer because it's morality vs freedom.

If you don't have an answer, are you going to retract this claim?

On the other hand, one's personal views or lifestyle shouldn't decide if you do or do not do business with them.


This is one of the many things the civil rights movement fought against.  Forbidding colored didn't seem to hurt many businesses so should we go back to that?

This is a common mistake made by statists -- assuming that a social movement could not possibly have effected change without assistance from the government.

A private company denying service to blacks does not infringe upon their rights in any way. They are free to go somewhere else (and, indeed, should want to -- why give your money to racists?), or even open their own competitor and take business away from racists.

On the other hand, forcing the company to provide service to people they don't like infringes upon their right to freedom of association.

Furthermore, banning racial discrimination does not stop racist thoughts. In your America, black people would routinely walk into stores and hand over money to racists, who would smile and do their best to avoid being charged with a crime while thinking "oh God, I have to deal with one of these people again" every day. Who would you suggest wins here? The people financially supporting racists or the people being forced to interact with people they hate?


Should we really eliminate the civil rights act?  Make discrimination legal again?

Assuming you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then it should not be repealed in its entirety, no. Most of it concerns discrimination by the state, not private institutions. Titles II and VII should not be excluded from the possibility of repeal, or at least amendment.


What about employment?  By this same logic, an employer should be able to reject someone for any reason, right?

Yes.
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.

Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2017, 08:29:23 AM »
That's my problem, I don't HAVE an answer because it's morality vs freedom.

If you don't have an answer, are you going to retract this claim?

On the other hand, one's personal views or lifestyle shouldn't decide if you do or do not do business with them.
Why would I?  I don't have an answer, just thoughts on possible answers. 

Quote
This is one of the many things the civil rights movement fought against.  Forbidding colored didn't seem to hurt many businesses so should we go back to that?

This is a common mistake made by statists -- assuming that a social movement could not possibly have effected change without assistance from the government.

A private company denying service to blacks does not infringe upon their rights in any way. They are free to go somewhere else (and, indeed, should want to -- why give your money to racists?), or even open their own competitor and take business away from racists.

On the other hand, forcing the company to provide service to people they don't like infringes upon their right to freedom of association.

Furthermore, banning racial discrimination does not stop racist thoughts. In your America, black people would routinely walk into stores and hand over money to racists, who would smile and do their best to avoid being charged with a crime while thinking "oh God, I have to deal with one of these people again" every day. Who would you suggest wins here? The people financially supporting racists or the people being forced to interact with people they hate?
The Montgomery Bus company was a private company.  Oh and a monopoly.  And backed by the state's segregation law.  So the black community couldn't just use another bus company nor start their own.

Your entire argument seems to stem from the idea that they can just "go somewhere else".  And right now, that's possible BECAUSE of anti-discrimination laws.  Banks can't discriminate on who they loan to.  Renters can't discriminate on who they rent to.  Supply stores can't discriminate on who they sell their supplies to.  The things you need to start a business are no longer discriminated.

Further more, what of the rights of the consumer?  Do they NOT have the right to purchase the best product at the lowest price?  You claim that forcing businesses to accept any customer that can pay, you violate their rights but by allowing them to go against the free market principals, you violate the consumer's right to get the best deal for whatever commodity they are seeking to purchase.

Finally, racism will always exist as long as we show it's still valid.  Allowing segregation and discrimination tells the country "It's ok to be racist".  Not only that but you end up in your own little bubble of life, being able to only interact with people who agree with you, not being exposed to other points of view or seeing how your preconceived notions that you got from your family might be wrong.  It's why cities are largely liberal in their thinking vs the more rural areas: Because cities have such a vast amount of diversity and people forced to deal with such diversity that the concept of traditionalism or tribalism is hard to gain traction.  The bubble is just too vast and too encompassing.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4203
  • Head Arthologist
    • View Profile
Re: Discrimination based on Politics
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2017, 09:09:48 AM »
If you don't have an answer, are you going to retract this claim?

On the other hand, one's personal views or lifestyle shouldn't decide if you do or do not do business with them.
Why would I?  I don't have an answer, just thoughts on possible answers.

Well, because that is the comment I was responding to when you said you didn't have an answer...

The Montgomery Bus company was a private company.  Oh and a monopoly.  And backed by the state's segregation law.  So the black community couldn't just use another bus company nor start their own.

Bolded the important part for you. The discriminatory rules came from the state, not from a private company, making this example irrelevant.

Your entire argument seems to stem from the idea that they can just "go somewhere else".  And right now, that's possible BECAUSE of anti-discrimination laws.  Banks can't discriminate on who they loan to.  Renters can't discriminate on who they rent to.  Supply stores can't discriminate on who they sell their supplies to.  The things you need to start a business are no longer discriminated.

No, that's not what makes it possible. What makes it possible is that not every business is run by the KKK.

Do you really think that repealing anti-discrimination laws would immediately cause all banks to refuse service to black people? It sounds like you have a very low opinion of your fellow man.

Further more, what of the rights of the consumer?  Do they NOT have the right to purchase the best product at the lowest price?

They have the right to purchase the best product at the lowest price that someone will offer it to them for. They do not have the right to force someone to engage in a transaction unwillingly.

Taking your train of thought to its logical conclusion, increasing the price of a product should be illegal, because then you are taking away the right of the consumer to buy it at its old price. That's not how commerce works.

You claim that forcing businesses to accept any customer that can pay, you violate their rights but by allowing them to go against the free market principals, you violate the consumer's right to get the best deal for whatever commodity they are seeking to purchase.

I don't think you understand what the free market is. You are not advocating a free market, you are advocating government interference in the market by way of anti-discrimination laws. Whether or not those laws are justified, they cannot be dressed up as "free market".

Finally, racism will always exist as long as we show it's still valid.  Allowing segregation and discrimination tells the country "It's ok to be racist".  Not only that but you end up in your own little bubble of life, being able to only interact with people who agree with you, not being exposed to other points of view or seeing how your preconceived notions that you got from your family might be wrong.  It's why cities are largely liberal in their thinking vs the more rural areas: Because cities have such a vast amount of diversity and people forced to deal with such diversity that the concept of traditionalism or tribalism is hard to gain traction.  The bubble is just too vast and too encompassing.

You have everything here the wrong way around. Racism will always exist, end of story.

The Roman Catholic church already tried the approach of disallowing viewpoints that conflicted with how they thought society should work. If it had succeeded, we wouldn't be having this debate because rapid communication between opposite sides of the world would be impossible.

What you are proposing, preventing racists from expressing themselves openly, is a great way to force them into their own little bubble. If you know that you will be arrested or fined for being seen as racist, then you will only express those opinions inside your group of like-minded friends. The way to break down those bubbles is to make racist speech and discrimination legal, not force racist opinions into hiding.
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.