Post by Cloud Hobbit Post by Kevrob Post by Rudy Canoza
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:24:19 -0800 (PST), Salty Stan
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung
What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition
to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding
cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moral
opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?
Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.
And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?
If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should
not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people out
of business >> for exactly that.
No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel because
it doesn't fit your bigotry.
You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?
I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legally
bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisy
of requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of their
faith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberal
performers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positions
counter to theirs.
Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.
One rule for them, a different rule for us.
One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex or
That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental human
rights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's that
Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s should
have taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contracted
with governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,
from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevant
criteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "public
accommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that it
inevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)
of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, those
people may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.
Civil rights legislation should have stopped when it made everybody equal under the law. Nothing else. By giving special advantages to anyone deemed a minority and I have no idea why women were included in this since there are more women than men in his country, they created a situation where the government helped institutionalize racism. It made every non-minority person wonder when they saw a "minority" what special advantages they got.
You are using the strictly numeric view of majority v minority. The
specialized meaning of it for sociologists, who had great influence over
things such as the SCOTUS decision BROWN v BOARD OF EDUCATION, is that
a minority has less power then the majority. In this view, white
South Africans were the majority, and black South Africans and the
mixed-race "coloreds" were minorities. Often the numeric majority has
the majority of power, but not always. It is jargon, which often is
not surprisingly greeted with derision when the general public hears it,
and it seems to violate common sense.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No laws that are diffrent for one group of people over another group of people. The should apply to everyone EQUALLY. Affirmitive action is not an example of equality.
Affirmative action changed its meaning over teh years. It started out as
"let's make an honest effort to invite minorities to apply for jobs
here. They, after centuries of discrimination and even absolute oppression,
probably don't believe they'll be given a fair shot unless we recruit
them and let them know they have a fair shot at being hired."
It degenerated into quotas. When quotas were ruled (sometimes) to be
discriminatory, "disparate impact" was dreamed up. There. what is supposed
to be a race- or sex-neutral hiring practice is called into question and
even assumed to be tainted by racism or sexism because it doesn't yield the
number of hires of the favored groups. Never mind if what is being tested
for, or the experience requested, really has something to do with the
qualifications of a new hire. The practice is presumptively suspect.
Post by Cloud Hobbit Post by Kevrob
Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businesses
so one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electric
power, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms not
discriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to making
all businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would have
died a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,
but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals have lost, and their
is not much point in trying to roll it back.
When exactly is the point that determines that we stop fighting for equality for everyone?
When something is so ingrained in the culture that kicking against it
makes it impossible to be listened to on other subjects.
Consider the history of the "libertarian macho flash."
For example, Rand Paul got flack, and lost all traction when he
tried to run for President by alternately refusing to say he'd have
voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act _as finally voted on_ while
trying to say he supported great swaths of it. See:
His objections aren't measurably different from my own, but I am
not a sitting Senator, nor am I likely ever to be one, nor a potential
major party candidate for Prez.
Post by Cloud Hobbit Post by Kevrob
There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supported
segregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemption
to allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyond
consideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that would
not have played.
Now we have college students who will attack you for cultural appropriation.
I think those institutions being forced to toe the line on Title IX
because they take Federal money should be made to get behind the free
speech provisions of Amendment 1. I may have to wait a good, long time