Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:This is my opinion as well.


The government or anyone else for that matter shouldn't tell me who I can allow to use my business.


If you oppose someone's business because of who they refuse service to, don't use their business.


It's your choice.

 

Then you are opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?   You think white people should be free to refuse service to black people?  

Quote:Then you are opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?   You think white people should be free to refuse service to black people?  

 

Quote:

 

I know, I know, I've probably gotten myself into a quagmire with that one. 

 

I posted it, and then I said to myself, Marty, did you really want to do that?  

Quote:I know, I know, I've probably gotten myself into a quagmire with that one. 

 

I posted it, and then I said to myself, Marty, did you really want to do that?  

 

At least you recognized it.

Quote:At least you recognized it.

 

Quote:What was it Mel Gibson said in The Patriot? Oh yeah, "Better one tyrant 3,000 miles away than 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away." Some script writer was prescient there. The notion that my rights end if they cause "pain" to others is absurd. Forcing me to have a business relationship that I find abhorrent causes me "pain", but it's ok with you when it's the gay guy exercising his so called "rights" but not ok when it's me exercising my actual rights simply because you disagree with my position. That is the subjectivity that must be eliminated lest we endanger ALL our rights. The right to private property is the most essential right of all because, as you are demonstrating in this thread, when it does not exist or exists in a weakened state then all of the other natural rights (speech, association, self determination, earning a living, etc.) are also endangered. A man has the right to do with his property as he chooses or he has a right to nothing.

This is why the right is losing this argument and has been losing it with ever anti-discrimination law that has passed. It's a poor argument. One view is purely a choice to think a thing is abhorrent. The other is very much not a choice. 

 

No being able to discriminate against women, or minorities, or sexual orientation does absolutely nothing to personal property rights what so ever. You are not arguing the right to own property or earn a living or anything. You are arguing in favor of discrimination which, if allowed as you desire, would endanger their rights. I don't think beliefs should trump rights of others. Ever. 

Quote:Now wait a minute, that's not true at all. Even "white" Irish people where discriminated up until JFK.

 

There is no group that has never "historically" been discriminated against.

But there are groups that are being targeted more and more with a very loud voice that to a lot of people is akin to what the mormons did to blacks you mentioned. People being discriminated against for something they cannot control inhibits their ability to live their lives. It has no place in a modern society. 

Quote:

We already know you answer

Quote:This is why the right is losing this argument and has been losing it with ever anti-discrimination law that has passed. It's a poor argument. One view is purely a choice to think a thing is abhorrent. The other is very much not a choice. 

 

No being able to discriminate against women, or minorities, or sexual orientation does absolutely nothing to personal property rights what so ever. You are not arguing the right to own property or earn a living or anything. You are arguing in favor of discrimination which, if allowed as you desire, would endanger their rights. I don't think beliefs should trump rights of others. Ever. 

 

It does not endanger their rights; they have no right to my time, services, property, business or anything else that is privately mine. You take liberties with other people's lives that aren't yours to take.

Quote:It does not endanger their rights; they have no right to my time, services, property, business or anything else that is privately mine. You take liberties with other people's lives that aren't yours to take.

Some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a modern society where bigotry is not tolerated. It's understandable to want to hold onto the past. A lot of people are not as willing to accept intolerance as a basic tenet of life as others seem to be. 

Quote:Some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a modern society where bigotry is not tolerated. It's understandable to want to hold onto the past. A lot of people are not as willing to accept intolerance as a basic tenet of life as others seem to be. 

 

You are welcome to not tolerate it in your own business; you should have no say in mine.

Quote:Some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a modern society where bigotry is not tolerated. It's understandable to want to hold onto the past. A lot of people are not as willing to accept intolerance as a basic tenet of life as others seem to be. 

 

I'm of the mindset that legislation cannot stop people from being morons in any such case. On a basic level, you're absolutely right in that people should not be discriminated against for being different (especially in situations in which that cannot be changed such as race, gender or sexual orientation) but some disassociated lawmaker isn't going to change Joe Bigot's mindset. They're still going to cling to their backwater views on how other people should live their lives and there isn't anything you nor I can do to change it.

 

What we can do, however, is not be bothered with such people.

Quote:You are welcome to not tolerate it in your own business; you should have no say in mine.

Hey if people want to be a bigot or a racist or wherever they are more then welcome to live a sad pathetic life as long it's not impacting others. Business impacts all of society and in some form or another utilizes benefits of the tax payers in general. That is why you cannot discriminate in business. 

Quote:I'm of the mindset that legislation cannot stop people from being morons in any such case. On a basic level, you're absolutely right in that people should not be discriminated against for being different (especially in situations in which that cannot be changed such as race, gender or sexual orientation) but some disassociated lawmaker isn't going to change Joe Bigot's mindset. They're still going to cling to their backwater views on how other people should live their lives and there isn't anything you nor I can do to change it.

 

What we can do, however, is not be bothered with such people.

You cannot change the way they think, and that is fine but you absolutely can legislate it. Their plenty of protected classes of people that cannot be discriminated against. 

Quote:They're still going to cling to their backwater views on how other people should live their lives and there isn't anything you nor I can do to change it.

 

What we can do, however, is not be bothered with such people.

 

 

Quote:You cannot change the way they think, and that is fine but you absolutely can legislate it. Their plenty of protected classes of people that cannot be discriminated against. 

 

 

And yet you don't recognize that you are what you are railing against: intolerant and discriminatory. Perfectly fine with using the point of the government's gun to force people to violate their consciences in violation of the Bill of Rights' protections against such government interference.

Quote:And yet you don't recognize that you are what you are railing against: intolerant and discriminatory. Perfectly fine with using the point of the government's gun to force people to violate their consciences in violation of the Bill of Rights' protections against such government interference.

There is precedent multiple times over in legislating intolerance. This is nothing new . 

 

Bigotry, racism and intolerance is wrong and immoral. If your "deeply held beliefs" force to you think lesser of people who are doing no harm and your only course of action is to outwardly inflict harm on them to justify your CHOICES, then yeah, I am ok with stamping that out in the interest of a more enlightened society. 

 

It's called progress. Our country was set up in a manner that allows for fluid change. That's a good thing. 

Quote:There is precedent multiple times over in legislating intolerance. This is nothing new . 

 

Bigotry, racism and intolerance is wrong and immoral. If your "deeply held beliefs" force to you think lesser of people who are doing no harm and your only course of action is to outwardly inflict harm on them to justify your CHOICES, then yeah, I am ok with stamping that out in the interest of a more enlightened society. 

 

It's called progress. Our country was set up in a manner that allows for fluid change. That's a good thing. 

 

That's the same argument has been used to justify the persecution of minorities in the past. Right now we're in an acceptance phase, eventually the pendulum swings back to a non-acceptance stage. Are you then comfortable with the state having the power to impose non-acceptance? If they have the power to impose acceptance they have the power to impose non-acceptance as well.

 

To have a state that can force participation you have to tolerate a state that can force segregation.

Quote:That's the same argument has been used to justify the persecution of minorities in the past. Right now we're in an acceptance phase, eventually the pendulum swings back to a non-acceptance stage. Are you then comfortable with the state having the power to impose non-acceptance? If they have the power to impose acceptance they have the power to impose non-acceptance as well.

 

To have a state that can force participation you have to tolerate a state that can force segregation.

 

That's pretty much exactly how I see it.


Boudreaumx is arguing from a place of compassion as a good person who doesn't like to see anyone treated poorly. I'm sure we all can respect where he's coming from, but this is the base of the issue at hand. Hence, keep living your life as you will and let morons be morons.

Quote:That's the same argument has been used to justify the persecution of minorities in the past. Right now we're in an acceptance phase, eventually the pendulum swings back to a non-acceptance stage. Are you then comfortable with the state having the power to impose non-acceptance? If they have the power to impose acceptance they have the power to impose non-acceptance as well.

 

To have a state that can force participation you have to tolerate a state that can force segregation.

I don't see how not allowing legalized discrimination leads to state sponsored discrimination. Honestly, I am not following you on this one. 

Quote:I don't see how not allowing legalized discrimination leads to state sponsored discrimination. Honestly, I am not following you on this one. 

 

Legislation is absolute, the power once created and given to the state is complete. In order to force participation between private parties they must have the legal authority to dictate interactions between private parties. Otherwise how can they rule what private parties do if they don't have the legal power?

 

When segregation was law, it was enforceable because the state assumed the power to tell private individuals how they are allowed to interact and how they are not (hence black and white bathrooms, black and white schools, black and white water fountains).

 

Morality, ethics, social acceptance they all change with time. Creating legislation on changing views of morality and ethics only accomplishes one thing, a large and more powerful state.