Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Why stop there? Should it be illegal to deny someone service because of a handicap? What about profession?

Political affiliation? 

Quote:I'm using a counter example of that logic being used the other way around.

 

Example 1 Private owned company is picking what medical coverages they will or won't pay for.

 

Example 2 Private owned company is choose what customers they do or don't want to serve.

 

I don't see why either is a problem.

Quote:Example 1 Private owned company is picking what medical coverages they will or won't pay for.

 

Example 2 Private owned company is choose what customers they do or don't want to serve.

 

I don't see why either is a problem.

 

I don't know if you actually believe this or if you just like the conversation you get on this board.

Quote:I don't know if you actually believe this or if you just like the conversation you get on this board.

It's a libertarian belief. He prescribes to all libertarian beliefs and is very uncompromising and consistent in his support for them. I don't agree with him half the time but he's generally good for conversation and debate. 

Quote:Example 1 Private owned company is picking what medical coverages they will or won't pay for.

 

Example 2 Private owned company is choose what customers they do or don't want to serve.

 

I don't see why either is a problem.

And there is one common denominator that leads to the discriminatory practices. That is the problem people have with them and why they have no place in civilized society in my opinion. 

Quote:I don't know if you actually believe this or if you just like the conversation you get on this board.

 

Earlier you guys asked why stop there, that's the problem with trying to legislate discrimination. Sure EVERYONE today just about agrees discrimination is wrong, but it's subjective to different people what is discrimination. For example is the existence of organizations that are race exclusive or gender exclusive discriminatory? Should it be illegal for a private owned business to refuse service to anyone?

 

Isn't it simply enough to say, public funding requires public access, but if a business or organization is privately owned and financed they are free to associate and do as they please. Why is that so controversial? Allowing something to exist for the protection of free association isn't the same as endorsing it. I understand that freedom of speech for example means I have to tolerate when people I disagree with practice it.

 

Mormons don't allow non-mormons into their temples, isn't that discrimination, shouldn't a Catholic be allowed equal access?

Quote:Earlier you guys asked why stop there, that's the problem with trying to legislate discrimination. Sure EVERYONE today just about agrees discrimination is wrong, but it's subjective to different people what is discrimination. For example is the existence of organizations that are race exclusive or gender exclusive discriminatory? Should it be illegal for a private owned business to refuse service to anyone?

 

Isn't it simply enough to say, public funding requires public access, but if a business or organization is privately owned and financed they are free to associate and do as they please. Why is that so controversial? Allowing something to exist for the protection of free association isn't the same as endorsing it. I understand that freedom of speech for example means I have to tolerate when people I disagree with practice it.

 

Mormons don't allow non-mormons into their temples, isn't that discrimination, shouldn't a Catholic be allowed equal access?

Yes, I think they should be. It conflates the issue in regards to churches or other places of worship due to their tax exempt status IMO.

Quote:Yes, I think they should be. It conflates the issue in regards to churches or other places of worship due to their tax exempt status IMO.

Well for different reasons we probably agree churches shouldn't be tax exempt

Quote:Well for different reasons we probably agree churches shouldn't be tax exempt

Be careful, only 3 more common ground points and you will be sent your rookie commie card

Quote:It's a libertarian belief. He prescribes to all libertarian beliefs and is very uncompromising and consistent in his support for them. I don't agree with him half the time but he's generally good for conversation and debate. 

 

I said the same thing and Eric and Bchbunnie got their panties in a bunch.

Quote:Well for different reasons we probably agree churches shouldn't be tax exempt

 

I think churches should be tax exempt.  Televangelism however, shouldn't be tax exempt.  

Quote:I think churches should be tax exempt. Televangelism however, shouldn't be tax exempt.

I think tax exemption is a way to control religious speech. Technically if a religious organization takes tax exemptions they can be told not to speak on specific issues.


I believe in a very strong separation of church and state to equally protect both institutions that play important but different roles in society.

Quote:Yes, I think they should be. It conflates the issue in regards to churches or other places of worship due to their tax exempt status IMO.

Back to this point hopefully we don't cross a line here. But if you forced Mormons to give equal access to non-Mormons you'd be infringing in a very aspect of their religion. They view there temples as holy and sacred someone unholy entering them would be a big problem.


So then we have the problem who's rights are we protecting and at what cost?


That's why I oppose discrimination laws, we can't legislate away immoral actions that's for free will to change. And before anyone throws around the easy for a white man to say mind you I've faced and dealt with discrimination on my mothers side and it doesn't change my views.

Quote:Back to this point hopefully we don't cross a line here. But if you forced Mormons to give equal access to non-Mormons you'd be infringing in a very aspect of their religion. They view there temples as holy and sacred someone unholy entering them would be a big problem.


So then we have the problem who's rights are we protecting and at what cost?


That's why I oppose discrimination laws, we can't legislate away immoral actions that's for free will to change. And before anyone throws around the easy for a white man to say mind you I've faced and dealt with discrimination on my mothers side and it doesn't change my views.

That an easy answer and it differs depending on what side of the aisle you are on. If you are on the left, freedom against discrimination trumps all. If you are on the right, religious freedoms to discriminate trumps all others. 

 

It's very simple and not about race, IMO. You vilify all forms of discrimination and do not allow it to even be an option. If you want to function in our society you should be willing to, at least while conducting business, not discriminate for any reason. Let's be honest, these bills are not about freedom. They are about pandering to a very specific base. A base that does not want to accept the progression of our society, that wants to turn back the time. There are plenty of societal ideals we vilify around the world such as the oppression of free speech and religion and women in the Arab world or the ideals of the communist nations. It strikes me as quite hypocritical to condemn those groups or nations for their beliefs (which are overwhelmingly agreed by Americans to be backwards and oppressive) while at the same time openly supporting the oppression of our fellow Americans.

Quote:That an easy answer and it differs depending on what side of the aisle you are on. If you are on the left, freedom against discrimination trumps all. If you are on the right, religious freedoms to discriminate trumps all others. 

 

It's very simple and not about race, IMO. You vilify all forms of discrimination and do not allow it to even be an option. If you want to function in our society you should be willing to, at least while conducting business, not discriminate for any reason. Let's be honest, these bills are not about freedom. They are about pandering to a very specific base. A base that does not want to accept the progression of our society, that wants to turn back the time. There are plenty of societal ideals we vilify around the world such as the oppression of free speech and religion and women in the Arab world or the ideals of the communist nations. It strikes me as quite hypocritical to condemn those groups or nations for their beliefs (which are overwhelmingly agreed by Americans to be backwards and oppressive) while at the same time openly supporting the oppression of our fellow Americans.

 

It's the old tolerance line, you would have me tolerate that which I find intolerable but you will not tolerate that which you find intolerable. The truth is that this is and always has been about private property rights. The idea that a non-owner has a right to something (a business, a service, a location, etc.) that is privately owned by someone else is the essential core of leftist philosophy reduced to its most basic pioint; that the individual does not own himself, he is the property of the state or community.

Quote:Supply and Demand, it's the free market at work. States can pass these restrictive laws if they like but they better be ready for less commerce in response. I don't have a problem with any of it, this is how the market is supposed to work.

I agree. I think it's silly to have to have a law passed that allows a business to do what they want. That should be the case no matter what. It is then on them, and those who they potentially serve to make their decision to use that business or not.

Quote:Companies that don't want to provide flower arrangements for gay weddings, can choose other forms of business.  I don't see the big controversy.

It's something for someone to complain about is what it boils down to. If a business doesn't want to serve you for who you are, or what you stand for, why would you want to patronize that place to anyway? That seems crazy to me.

Quote:It's something for someone to complain about is what it boils down to. If a business doesn't want to serve you for who you are, or what you stand for, why would you want to patronize that place to anyway? That seems crazy to me.

 

It is crazy to you because you are likely an able bodied, heterosexual white male.

Quote:It's the old tolerance line, you would have me tolerate that which I find intolerable but you will not tolerate that which you find intolerable. The truth is that this is and always has been about private property rights. The idea that a non-owner has a right to something (a business, a service, a location, etc.) that is privately owned by someone else is the essential core of leftist philosophy reduced to its most basic pioint; that the individual does not own himself, he is the property of the state or community.

That's a fair point and I only have a problem with intollerance when it enters the public sector. I think the line ought be drawn when conducting business.

Quote:It's something for someone to complain about is what it boils down to. If a business doesn't want to serve you for who you are, or what you stand for, why would you want to patronize that place to anyway? That seems crazy to me.

you don't actually think its just something for someone to complain about do you? Its basicly the same idea as the civil rights movement between whites and blacks.