Where we disagree I think is in regards to social goods. Those sectors of the society you mentioned above can be seen as the core of the society, adding a profit motive to them would be unwise... in my opinion, of course.

 

That's fine but it's still a huge sector of the economy. Housing for example the majority of homes and a healthy amount of all mortgages are government backed and financed loans. Education is a huge part of the economy being subsidized by federal student loans and grants. Transportation another huge sector of the economy that is almost exclusively funded by the government. 

 

I'm not arguing all of this is bad I'm just pointing out more of the economy is socialized then privatized in today's market. That's why the argument it's the free market making people poor, holding us down, oppressing the consumer doesn't hold water, we don't have anything close to a free market.

---

No I don't see a situation where a company is going to spend millions to build a highway and then say ok tell us if your gay or straight before paying the toll.

Business are already attempting to deny service based on this. What makes you think it would never happen? Regardless. You would still support the road owners right to deny service. That was my point

---

Where we disagree I think is in regards to social goods. Those sectors of the society you mentioned above can be seen as the core of the society, adding a profit motive to them would be unwise... in my opinion, of course.

He thinks charity will cure all. Charity derived from profits.

---

That's fine but it's still a huge sector of the economy. Housing for example the majority of homes and a healthy amount of all mortgages are government backed and financed loans. Education is a huge part of the economy being subsidized by federal student loans and grants. Transportation another huge sector of the economy that is almost exclusively funded by the government.


I'm not arguing all of this is bad I'm just pointing out more of the economy is socialized then privatized in today's market. That's why the argument it's the free market making people poor, holding us down, oppressing the consumer doesn't hold water, we don't have anything close to a free market.

Not everything is private so its not a free market? Come on now

---

Business are already attempting to deny service based on this. What makes you think it would never happen? Regardless. You would still support the road owners right to deny service. That was my point

 

I would support whatever is in the contract, between the company and the community that contracted the company. I imagine they would require the company to permit full access to all individuals before accepting the bid. You're creating an imaginary scenario where a racist community or a homophobic community contracted a racist or homophobic company to build a road for strictly heterosexual and approved race ethnicity and then you're asking if I would support that?

 

Personally no I wouldn't support it I wouldn't drive on it,I wouldn't live in that community. If you're asking if a private community contracts a private company to enforce these hypothetical conditions do I think they have the right to do it, well then yes. There is 0.0000000% chance that would or could ever happen, you're building a scenario of next to no probability to tear down a point about private association.

 

Likewise I can give you plenty of examples where government having a monopoly of force has done that very exact thing, made roads and public access exclusive to a set group and persecuted minorities, but you're bent on private individuals being the evil. When you examine history it's only when evil has a monopoly on force that discrimination really occurs.

 

He thinks charity will cure all. Charity derived from profits.

 

 

 

Not everything is private so its not a free market? Come on now

 

No when 3/4's of the market is dependent on government grants, loans and subsidies you don't have a free market.

---

Getting back on topic.

 

Pat Haden will be skipping the playoff committee meeting in Indiana this week.

 

 

Pat Haden, the athletic director at the University of Southern California, will skip a meeting of the College Football Playoff committee this week in Indiana because of the state’s recent passage of a controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
 
“I am the proud father of a gay son,” Haden announced on Twitter. “In his honor, I will not be attending the CFP committee meeting in Indy this week. #EmbraceDiversity”
 
The religious freedom bill, which will take effect in July, has provoked a firestorm of criticism with one of the NCAA’s marquee events, the men’s Final Four, coming to Indianapolis this weekend. On Tuesday, Gov. Mike Pence ® promised that the state would clarify the bill to ensure that businesses do not discriminate against gays, lesbians, transgenders and bisexuals. He defended the law, adding that it was being unfairly portrayed in the media, but urged the legislature to take further action this week.
 
“We need to focus specifically on this perception that this creates some license to discriminate,” he said at a news conference in Indianapolis.
 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/earl...n-indiana/

---

Getting back on topic.

 

Pat Haden will be skipping the playoff committee meeting in Indiana this week.

 

<div> 
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/earl...n-indiana/

</div>

The supporters of the bill in the picture of the signing of it are outspoken against LGBT rights. To say this has nothing to do with with discrimination is a bold faced lie. 

---

I would support whatever is in the contract, between the company and the community that contracted the company. I imagine they would require the company to permit full access to all individuals before accepting the bid. You're creating an imaginary scenario where a racist community or a homophobic community contracted a racist or homophobic company to build a road for strictly heterosexual and approved race ethnicity and then you're asking if I would support that?

 

Personally no I wouldn't support it I wouldn't drive on it,I wouldn't live in that community. If you're asking if a private community contracts a private company to enforce these hypothetical conditions do I think they have the right to do it, well then yes. There is 0.0000000% chance that would or could ever happen, you're building a scenario of next to no probability to tear down a point about private association.

 

Likewise I can give you plenty of examples where government having a monopoly of force has done that very exact thing, made roads and public access exclusive to a set group and persecuted minorities, but you're bent on private individuals being the evil. When you examine history it's only when evil has a monopoly on force that discrimination really occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

No when 3/4's of the market is dependent on government grants, loans and subsidies you don't have a free market.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all. Some factions of the right are starting to push hard for new discrimination laws since the racist ones failed decades ago. It's not unreasonable to posit legal discrimination could be used in regards to privatization of things all of society use to live their lives. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if people just stopped trying to discriminate against others. We have a modern society maybe it's time to start acting like it as a nation. 

---

The supporters of the bill in the picture of the signing of it are outspoken against LGBT rights. To say this has nothing to do with with discrimination is a bold faced lie.

What rights? When did sexual preference become a right?


There's no right to be straight or gay those issues are personal decisions but there's no authority for anyone to be forced into accepting those choices.


I'm not even talking about are you born straight or did you choose to be straight, regardless if it's nature or nurture when did a lifestyle become a right?


When people say ____ opposed LGBT rights what rights did they oppose?

---

I don't think it's unreasonable at all. Some factions of the right are starting to push hard for new discrimination laws since the racist ones failed decades ago. It's not unreasonable to posit legal discrimination could be used in regards to privatization of things all of society use to live their lives. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if people just stopped trying to discriminate against others. We have a modern society maybe it's time to start acting like it as a nation.

Wait so you think the right is now purposefully working to discriminate against homosexuals because they can't discriminate against blacks anymore?


No one is arguing for discrimination there's two sides of this argument. 1 discrimination of any kind is evil - therefor we must outlaw all discrimination. 2 discrimination is evil - to outlaw discrimination you have to ignore private party rights established in the constitution - therefore laws to prohibit discrimination are unconstitutional

---

What rights? When did sexual preference become a right?


There's no right to be straight or gay those issues are personal decisions but there's no authority for anyone to be forced into accepting those choices.


I'm not even talking about are you born straight or did you choose to be straight, regardless if it's nature or nurture when did a lifestyle become a right?


When people say ____ opposed LGBT rights what rights did they oppose?

When did race become a right? There is no right to be white or black. When people say ____opposed black right what rights did they oppose?

 

You know the answers to these questions already. 

---

What rights? When did sexual preference become a right?

 

When did it stop being a right?


The 9th amendment gives us rights not listed in the constitution.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Wait so you think the right is now purposefully working to discriminate against homosexuals because they can't discriminate against blacks anymore?


No one is arguing for discrimination there's two sides of this argument. 1 discrimination of any kind is evil - therefor we must outlaw all discrimination. 2 discrimination is evil - to outlaw discrimination you have to ignore private party rights established in the constitution - therefore laws to prohibit discrimination are unconstitutional

I think it's clearly motivated by the core beliefs of a portion of the right yes just as it was in with race discrimination. That's about all I can say on here. 

 

Discrimination is evil. It should be outlawed. I don't understand what there is to debate about that. Discrimination is wrong on so many levels and has been since forever and I do not understand how one can defend it. The idea that you should be allowed to discriminate because you just feel like it is, in my opinion insane. Those people are on the wrong side of history and they are fighting tooth and nail to remain in the past.  

---

I think it's clearly motivated by the core beliefs of a portion of the right yes just as it was in with race discrimination. That's about all I can say on here. 

 

Discrimination is evil. It should be outlawed. I don't understand what there is to debate about that. Discrimination is wrong on so many levels and has been since forever and I do not understand how one can defend it. The idea that you should be allowed to discriminate because you just feel like it is, in my opinion insane. Those people are on the wrong side of history and they are fighting tooth and nail to remain in the past.  

 

You're still missing the argument they're making. It's not because they feel like it, it's because private property and free association are protected constitutional rights and bedrocks of free market society. The ONLY way to eliminate discrimination through legislation is to require at the force of government if necessary for all people to have access to all property at all times, otherwise you're just picking what forms of discrimination are acceptable and what forms are not.

---

When did it stop being a right?


The 9th amendment gives us rights not listed in the constitution.

 

Life choices have never been a protected right, neither implied nor defined. You can argue they should be but don't pretend the 9th amendment is a blanket of rights. Other wise you have to accept the argument people have the right to discriminate.

---

You're still missing the argument they're making. It's not because they feel like it, it's because private property and free association are protected constitutional rights and bedrocks of free market society. The ONLY way to eliminate discrimination through legislation is to require at the force of government if necessary for all people to have access to all property at all times, otherwise you're just picking what forms of discrimination are acceptable and what forms are not.

I do not think I am missing the point at all. I am arguing that when conducting business you cannot discriminate just as the government offices and institutions cannot discriminate. Protections are already in place for many other groups such as race/age/sex w/e why should LGBT protections be the line we draw? Where is the legitimate argument for that. 

---

I do not think I am missing the point at all. I am arguing that when conducting business you cannot discriminate just as the government offices and institutions cannot discriminate. Protections are already in place for many other groups such as race/age/sex w/e why should LGBT protections be the line we draw? Where is the legitimate argument for that. 

 

Put aside what groups are protected and what groups are not, I'm just looking at the ability to provide such protection. When conducting business it's an exchange between two parties, how can you force a party to make an exchange with a party they wish not to exchange with? That's the argument, HOW can you force participation, and what has to be sacrificed to force said participation.

 

The same concept extends to all discrimination laws, it's different to argue public funding requires equal access. Everyone is paying so everyone has to be given access. But to argue private parties regardless of their desire must grant equal access to all is completely different. Now you're ranking rights, person A's right to access trumps person B's right to free association or private property.

---

Put aside what groups are protected and what groups are not, I'm just looking at the ability to provide such protection. When conducting business it's an exchange between two parties, how can you force a party to make an exchange with a party they wish not to exchange with? That's the argument, HOW can you force participation, and what has to be sacrificed to force said participation.

 

The same concept extends to all discrimination laws, it's different to argue public funding requires equal access. Everyone is paying so everyone has to be given access. But to argue private parties regardless of their desire must grant equal access to all is completely different. Now you're ranking rights, person A's right to access trumps person B's right to free association or private property.

You can gussy it up but it's still discrimination.

 

How can you force it? Lawsuits. Don't want to serve everyone because you are a sexist or a racist or a bigot? Do not get into business. You should only want to make money that's the point of business no? Legally allowing people to discriminate while conducting business kind of goes against everything this country stands for. 

 

You are arguing that discrimination in business is a right. I am arguing there is no place for it in society and people need to be dragged kicking and screaming in the modern world where it is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of people. 

---

You can gussy it up but it's still discrimination.

 

How can you force it? Lawsuits. Don't want to serve everyone because you are a sexist or a racist or a bigot? Do not get into business. You should only want to make money that's the point of business no? Legally allowing people to discriminate while conducting business kind of goes against everything this country stands for. 

 

You are arguing that discrimination in business is a right. I am arguing there is no place for it in society and people need to be dragged kicking and screaming in the modern world where it is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of people. 

 

There is no difference in private business and private association. I'm arguing that the right to private property is just as important to protect as the right to access. When rights start to trump other rights, you create an issue where nothing is absolute and everything is abstract. I believe in absolute rights, regardless of the misuse of said rights.

---

There is no difference in private business and private association. I'm arguing that the right to private property is just as important to protect as the right to access. When rights start to trump other rights, you create an issue where nothing is absolute and everything is abstract. I believe in absolute rights, regardless of the misuse of said rights.

 

There are many difference. For one, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when conducting business in public. 

 

It's very simple. You cannot discriminate when conducting business. What's abstract about that? 

 

I believe in a society where people stop finding new groups to discriminate against based on beliefs that, IMO, have no place in a modern society. 

---