Forums | MacLife

radarman wrote:

Metacell wrote:

"Officer, why did you not protect that man from being murdered?"

"Well, you know, he was gay...and I don't feel I should have to serve them too."


Forget PC, constitutional rights.  We should just kill all the homophobics so the world can move on.

Not starter. A policeman works for the government, which means he is payed from public money. He is required to serve gay victims because they are helping to pay his salary.

Fine, replace with "security guard", "stunt coordinator", or "bartender".

radarman wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Actually, you're defending the freedom of people to oppress++ minorities, safe in the knowledge that you aren't one of those minorities, in the tradition of internet libertarians everywhere.

Perhaps, but who is to say I wouldn't get discriminated against? I've gone with friends to bars where I was definitely in the minority. Would I have been irritated if they had refused me service? Probably, and I would have responded by not going back.

BRING BACK SEGREGATION!

bratboy wrote:

The exact text:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

I think the standard dodge for this inconvenience is to organize as a club instead of a business. Which ought to satisfy Radarman's type of folk (assuming they're willing to forego business tax breaks, etc.) Whether Doctors should be allowed to use this dodge is an interesting question. Or not.

Last edited by mackerm (2008-08-19 9:42 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

And that was exactly what this thread was about.

Certainly not about the Bill of Rights, eh what?

I do think you may have missed the point he was making and what our Bill of Rights is about.

It's about a number of things, including equality, no?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The bill of rights says all citizens are equal.

Any other rights you'd like to take away?

I'm not talking about taking rights away from anyone. I'm talking about restoring rights that were wrongfully taken. A subtle point, but apparently one missed in todays overly liberal society.

It's in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't want it there it has to be removed.

You're therefore removing a right.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but please be honest about what we're talking about.

Have you actually read the bill of rights? If you haven't, they are listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … _of_Rights

They are intended to protect the individual from the government, not other people. I've been arguing, apparently unsuccessfully, that it is unjust to apply the same restrictions to people as we apply to government. In fact, the first amendment is partly the BASIS for my argument.

There have been several amendments since that add to the Bill of Rights, so lets see if any of those apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_am … nstitution

Nope, doesn't look like it.

The civil rights movement was all about guaranteeing minorities an equal seat at the table of government. It was only later, in a misguided move, that we started seeing minorities exercising undo power over others through various laws. It is right to guarantee that the government, and its various organs, don't discriminate. Beyond that, it is a matter for men and women to take up with each other, and whatever god or gods they serve.

Anything else is tyranny.

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

I'm not talking about taking rights away from anyone. I'm talking about restoring rights that were wrongfully taken. A subtle point, but apparently one missed in todays overly liberal society.

It's in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't want it there it has to be removed.

You're therefore removing a right.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but please be honest about what we're talking about.

Have you actually read the bill of rights? If you haven't, they are listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … _of_Rights

They are intended to protect the individual from the government, not other people. I've been arguing, apparently unsuccessfully, that it is unjust to apply the same restrictions to people as we apply to government. In fact, the first amendment is partly the BASIS for my argument.

There have been several amendments since that add to the Bill of Rights, so lets see if any of those apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_am … nstitution

Nope, doesn't look like it.

The civil rights movement was all about guaranteeing minorities an equal seat at the table of government. It was only later, in a misguided move, that we started seeing minorities exercising undo power over others through various laws. It is right to guarantee that the government, and its various organs, don't discriminate. Beyond that, it is a matter for men and women to take up with each other, and whatever god or gods they serve.

Anything else is tyranny.

Equality before the law: should it exist? Does it exist?

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

Have you actually read the bill of rights? If you haven't, they are listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … _of_Rights

They are intended to protect the individual from the government, not other people. I've been arguing, apparently unsuccessfully, that it is unjust to apply the same restrictions to people as we apply to government. In fact, the first amendment is partly the BASIS for my argument.

There have been several amendments since that add to the Bill of Rights, so lets see if any of those apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_am … nstitution

Nope, doesn't look like it.

The civil rights movement was all about guaranteeing minorities an equal seat at the table of government. It was only later, in a misguided move, that we started seeing minorities exercising undo power over others through various laws. It is right to guarantee that the government, and its various organs, don't discriminate. Beyond that, it is a matter for men and women to take up with each other, and whatever god or gods they serve.

Anything else is tyranny.

Equality before the law: should it exist? Does it exist?

Should it exist? Yes. Does it exist? No. Relevance to the issue of private, non-governmental discrimination? None.

So the law has no relevance to what's legal and what's not?

So should segregation have been allowed to stick around?

And since the Bill of Rights limits governmental discrimination, Bush policy is to privatize things so that discrimination can happen without it being illegal. Great situation.

Chickenhawk wrote:

So I can open a shop and put a sign out front saying "No Gays or Lesbians allowed"?

actually...if it's a private business you should be able to.

is it right?  no...but it's your right to do so.

NokX wrote:

actually...if it's a private business you should be able to.

is it right?  no...but it's your right to do so.

If you're talking about a business open to the public, Title II of the Civil Rights Act has long said otherwise.

Same holds true with the boy scouts in most areas.

Things can be illegal under one set of laws and not another. Your favorite target, the Constitution, is a set of laws which defines rights, the limitations of the government, (to a degree) which laws are legal, and who is responsible for what laws.

The federal, state & local governments write laws which are ultimately answerable to the legal guidelines (federal and state constitutions). Suffice it to say, if there is discrimination based on sexuality it would violate federal, state and/or local laws, not the Constitution as it stands now. Now those laws can violate constitutional law but they need to be challenged in the Supreme Court for that to be determined.

NokX wrote:

bratboy wrote:

NokX wrote:

actually...if it's a private business you should be able to.

is it right?  no...but it's your right to do so.

If you're talking about a business open to the public, Title II of the Civil Rights Act has long said otherwise.

i'm asking this honestly...

what about these businesses that post signs saying they have a right to refuse service to whom they choose?  how does that work?

They can refuse service for a multitude of reasons. They cannot for reasons of race, gender, sexual orientation or disability.