or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 223

post #3331 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

A "civil right" is separate from a mutually consensual business relationship.  Or have you gone full socialist and believe that government should control all means of production and distribution?


That's clearly a direct extrapolation. You're really bringing the nuance and subtly that libertarians are known for to this discussion.
post #3332 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Racial, ethnic & religious minorities = all black people? Lol. Pull up your pants Turk cause you're talking out of your ass.

Maybe we should get Hillary Clinton to draw you a venn diagram.
post #3333 of 8748
.
post #3334 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I'm picking a particular real world example to highlight the consequences of this stance. "I can't buy a cake from the vendor I like!" is easily trivialized, but the very obvious problems of mass discrimination in the not too distant past aren't. I don't think society is going to agree that "Well, it's ok because anyone can be discriminated against!" is much reassurance.

History has demonstrated that people are entirely willing to go against their own economic interests for the sake of prejudice. When the majority is persecuting a minority and that practice is widespread, that can have a profound effect on society and the quality of life for those minorities. It's pretty easy to imagine a small town where everybody refuses to sell to gays, or blacks, or whoever. It was common before the Civil Rights act passed.

We really want to go back to the society we had before the Civil Rights Act?
False equivalence there. Forbidding lenders from discriminating based on race is not the same as forcing them to make loans to unqualified people. You can refuse to let race be a negative while not requiring that it be a positive.

The public shaming that would result from widespread discrimination would force those places out of business rather quickly. If they stayed in business, you are provided the ability to determine who is worthy of your hard earned dollars. Equality has little to do with forcing unwilling parties to enter into a business transaction.

We aren't choosing between two ideals. You either stick with a system that respects private property and the rights of individual business owners, or you end up with a system that fines family owned shops hundreds of thousands of dollars for hurting someone's feelings. You asked how Christianity was under attack, this is one example. How long will it be before there's a real effort to strip Churches of their tax exempt status? It will be an uphill battle, certainly, but it has already begun. I'm sure it's hard to fathom, but give it another decade or so.

20 years ago if I had told you that a family would have their bank account seized by the government over refusing to bake a cake, would you have laughed at the idea?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/29/bakers-forced-to-pay-more-than-135g-in-lesbian-cake-battle.html
post #3335 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

The public shaming that would result from widespread discrimination would force those places out of business rather quickly. If they stayed in business, you are provided the ability to determine who is worthy of your hard earned dollars. Equality has little to do with forcing unwilling parties to enter into a business transaction.

We aren't choosing between two ideals. You either stick with a system that respects private property and the rights of individual business owners, or you end up with a system that fines family owned shops hundreds of thousands of dollars for hurting someone's feelings. You asked how Christianity was under attack, this is one example. How long will it be before there's a real effort to strip Churches of their tax exempt status? It will be an uphill battle, certainly, but it has already begun. I'm sure it's hard to fathom, but give it another decade or so.

20 years ago if I had told you that a family would have their bank account seized by the government over refusing to bake a cake, would you have laughed at the idea?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/29/bakers-forced-to-pay-more-than-135g-in-lesbian-cake-battle.html

You're getting awfully worked up over the government forcing people to work to make things they otherwise wouldn't make. What's the big deal?

Of course, we are debating this in a thread about a proud supporter of eminent domain for commercial purposes, so it's not all that off-subject.
post #3336 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


The public shaming that would result from widespread discrimination would force those places out of business rather quickly. If they stayed in business, you are provided the ability to determine who is worthy of your hard earned dollars. Equality has little to do with forcing unwilling parties to enter into a business transaction.
 

 

It's curious that history has shown otherwise

post #3337 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

20 years ago if I had told you that a family would have their bank account seized by the government over refusing to bake a cake, would you have laughed at the idea?

Or refusing blacks service at lunch counters. Huh, the analogy still seems to fit.

Yes, I'd have expected someone to face penalties for violating the Civil Rights Act back in 1995. This is exactly the same argument you see (and still see, in some quarters) against the Civil Rights Act. How much of that are we supposedly rolling back in favor of liberty? Businesses can refuse to hire women? You can be fired for having kids? That stuff happens already, albeit less than it used to, and it's actually illegal. Removing those protections and then assuming social pressure will keep a lid of discrimination just doesn't seem plausible. There's an awfully large segment of society that is pretty happy sacrificing a small amount of liberty in exchange for having the power of law at work on reducing that kind of discrimination.
post #3338 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Or refusing blacks service at lunch counters. Huh, the analogy still seems to fit.

Yes, I'd have expected someone to face penalties for violating the Civil Rights Act. This is exactly the same argument you see (and still see, in some quarters) against the Civil Rights Act. How much of that are we supposedly rolling back in favor of liberty? Businesses can refuse to hire women? You can be fired for having kids? That stuff happens already, and it's actually illegal. Removing those protections and then assuming social pressure will keep a lid of discrimination just doesn't seem plausible. There's an awfully large segment of society that is pretty happy sacrificing a small amount of liberty in exchange for having the power of law at work on reducing that kind of discrimination.

What about those "secret racists" that do not patronise the business because it is minority owned? We should round those people up (who avoid shopping at 7/11) and give em a warning after lie-detector test.
We will stomp out the racism, but it takes a village!
post #3339 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

It's curious that history has shown otherwise

These also seem to be the same people who want to get rid of political correctness, eg, shaming people and businesses into following social conventions against bigotry.


To bring this back to Trump: From all the cheering about Trump's so-called "war on political correctness," you look at the stuff he's actually doing and it's the exact stuff the political correctness movement was created to stop: making personal attacks against women, minorities, going after people's religion. And he gets cheered for it.

I'm left with the conclusion that a not-insignificant fraction of the country wants it to be socially acceptable to be a bigot.
post #3340 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

And what happens when government creates laws that harm people rather than help them?  A good example is the bathroom laws in North Carolina (and other places).  You act as though the government is some benevolent being that always does right.  Except those same people who want to discriminate vote and get elected and pass dumb laws that codify discrimination or other things that harm minorities - sometimes intentionally and sometimes with unintended consequences.  Then the law gets challenged in court, which takes a year or two at least, and with the courts, there is no guarantee on how they decide.  Your link only reinforces that point: courts agreed the discrimination is Constitutionally protected.  So somehow we can say it is okay to discriminate based on religion but not on what sex organs you find attractive?


I don't believe a free market is perfect or always gets it right.  However, I just rather take my chances with an open and free market rather than with government: especially with the power of anonymous purchasing via the internet.  Furthermore, I rather not enforce my morality on others, and I don't like it when others try to do the same.  Next the courts will be ruling that the 2nd Amendment means businesses can't ban firearms by carry permit holders.

Don't forget the power that these anti-discrimination laws can have on emboldening discrimination.  Look at the various businesses who run afoul of these laws.  That Indiana pizzeria got almost $1m in donations after they refused to serve gays. 

The bathroom laws in N.C. are a good example. That's some shitty lawmaking. My position doesn't reduce to "laws are perfect." But that example is also a good one because I'm guessing/hoping that the laws will eventually make their way through the judiciary and be struck down. That is, the government has a built-in curb on wrongful/stupid lawmaking. It's an imperfect, costly, and slow system, but it's there. I'm not denying that in a lot of cases, business & publicity has its own curbs on discrimination. But those curbs are imperfect too, in different ways, and I happen to think that legal enforcement is necessary.

Do you honestly think--in light of actual American history, not just distant or remote but within recent memory--that most of the evidence suggests that businesses are better at stamping out discrimination when left alone? When it comes to the black elephant in the room, you keep returning to isolated examples--which aren't irrelevant or unimportant as case studies, but still (it seems to me) the exception when it comes to the enforcement it took to dismantle an apartheid society.
post #3341 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


So your example from an 1896 case involving a State law stands for the proposition that discrimination is what government laws do, not what private companies and citizens do. Therefore the Federal government shouldn't involve itself in legislating civil rights (i.e., by preempting states from allowing discrimination). Hrrrm.

 

Are you intentionally being that dense?  I used one example because it had already been brought up.  My point was, and still is, that governments have historically been laggards when it comes to things like discrimination. 

post #3342 of 8748
It bears repeating that there were "whites only" lunch counters because the government did not allow integrated restaurants, not because the cooks had moral objections to selling their food to black people.
post #3343 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Are you intentionally being that dense?  I used one example because it had already been brought up.  My point was, and still is, that governments have historically been laggards when it comes to things like discrimination. 
Your 1896 reference was your example that proves your maxim that people are ahead of the government on discrimination. I guess I'm dense because I think your point (and I couldn't even tell what your point was I'm so dense!) is so devoid of logic or support as to make me question how you can even manage to think it's coherent.
post #3344 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post


The bathroom laws in N.C. are a good example. That's some shitty lawmaking. My position doesn't reduce to "laws are perfect." But that example is also a good one because I'm guessing/hoping that the laws will eventually make their way through the judiciary and be struck down. That is, the government has a built-in curb on wrongful/stupid lawmaking. It's an imperfect, costly, and slow system, but it's there. I'm not denying that in a lot of cases, business & publicity has its own curbs on discrimination. But those curbs are imperfect too, in different ways, and I happen to think that legal enforcement is necessary.

Do you honestly think--in light of actual American history, not just distant or remote but within recent memory--that most of the evidence suggests that businesses are better at stamping out discrimination when left alone? When it comes to the black elephant in the room, you keep returning to isolated examples--which aren't irrelevant or unimportant as case studies, but still (it seems to me) the exception when it comes to the enforcement it took to dismantle an apartheid society.

 

In recent memory, I can think of a few examples of discrimination.  Almost all of them around sexual orientation.

On the commerce side, there are businesses that don't want to serve gay people (almost exclusively serve their weddings).  On the government side, there are laws passed regulating bathrooms in private businesses.  For the business side, customers can go to another florist or caterer or whatever.  When government regulates the bathrooms of establishments, the impacted parties have one choice: move outside the reach of the law (or operate against the law).

The next question is how do we undo that impact?  On the government side, we have to rely on the courts.  Odds are they will strike the law down, but they might not.  There is a history of them justifying discrimination to be reversed down the road.  Best case scenario though is that the law will be on the books for two years.  Then the government can always pass a new law and force everyone to go through the process again.  On the business side, we can only rely on people boycotting or protesting or another business coming in to serve the impacted group.  For a small, family-run business, that might not be enough, but any publicly traded company will certainly feel the pressure.  If they ignore a market segment for a dumb reason like sexual orientation, their shareholders could remove the executives for violating their fiduciary duty.

 

My bias will always be toward letting people and businesses operate in their own way.  I don't think passing laws is effective: it doesn't suddenly make a bigot realize they are bigoted and decide to change.  People will just spend extra effort attempting to subvert the law, and let's not forget about Kentucky where government officials sworn to uphold the law openly defied it, and they couldn't even remove them from that post.

 

Perhaps I hold my position because I am in a group that is rarely discriminated against.  Perhaps it is just because I don't like being told what to do by someone with a lot of guns and the ability to throw me in jail.

post #3345 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


Your 1896 reference was your example that proves your maxim that people are ahead of the government on discrimination. I guess I'm dense because I think your point (and I couldn't even tell what your point was I'm so dense!) is so devoid of logic or support as to make me question how you can even manage to think it's coherent.


My argument was that government forced people to discriminate.  I used an example of a railroad company that wanted to allow a black person in a first class car with white people.  That black man was arrested for violating the law.  In this case, black people could have been served exactly the same as white people by the railroad company if it weren't for the law (and the railroad company did allow the man to sit in the first class car which is why he was arrested).  Where are you getting lost?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field