or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 125

post #1861 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Certainly no government has ever made stores put up signs about not serving groups of people...

I have not followed this, but I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. The government has certainly prohibited stores from refusing to serve people based on their perceived or actual membership in various "groups". Am I missing a step, or would this be some sort of half-measure that stops short of that? Which is not to say that it's half as valid or half as stupid, but suggesting that it breaks new ground sort of misses the context, I think. Then again, you've actually read the bill and I haven't, so outside of the interwebz I'd be in no place to lecture you about "context".
post #1862 of 5117
"No Shoes, No Shirt, No Cut Off Jean Shorts"
post #1863 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

You're looking at an old version of the bill, Piob. The bill as passed by the House recognizes marriages performed by judges, as well (link to the passed version is below).

I'm actually a fan of the OK bill. I don't believe the state belongs in marriages at all, but their approach is a decent compromise. The state is basically saying, "fine, marry whoever you want. We're not going to be the arbiters of marriage anymore." I'm good with that.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20FLR/HFLR/HB1125%20HFLR.PDF

I'm all for the state not caring about who you marry (and I am positive you could find yourself a "church" that would allow whatever crazy things you could imagine). For the most part, the arrangements provided by marriage offer conveniences (with some personal financial benefits/costs associated). If person X wants to give person Y a bunch of legal powers, suvivorship rights, etc. I don't think the government should really care or be able to stop them (and combining them all under things that automatically come with marriage saves you from having to draft contracts/wills for everything).

But what about naturalization? If you want to marry a foreigner and give them permanent status in this country...that seems like something the state has to be involved in or else it becomes open to abuse.
post #1864 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

I'm all for the state not caring about who you marry (and I am positive you could find yourself a "church" that would allow whatever crazy things you could imagine). For the most part, the arrangements provided by marriage offer conveniences (with some personal financial benefits/costs associated). If person X wants to give person Y a bunch of legal powers, suvivorship rights, etc. I don't think the government should really care or be able to stop them (and combining them all under things that automatically come with marriage saves you from having to draft contracts/wills for everything).

But what about naturalization? If you want to marry a foreigner and give them permanent status in this country...that seems like something the state has to be involved in or else it becomes open to abuse.

The federal government is responsible for naturalization. So if people are submitting these things fraudulently, people would still be prosecutable by the federal government. You also can't be married to more than one person at a time.
post #1865 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I have not followed this, but I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. The government has certainly prohibited stores from refusing to serve people based on their perceived or actual membership in various "groups". Am I missing a step, or would this be some sort of half-measure that stops short of that? Which is not to say that it's half as valid or half as stupid, but suggesting that it breaks new ground sort of misses the context, I think. Then again, you've actually read the bill and I haven't, so outside of the interwebz I'd be in no place to lecture you about "context".

I don't think a government should be able to force individuals or organizations to do business with anyone they don't want to for whatever reason they want. With that bias being stated, I find it a bit unsettling the government forcing businesses to put signs on the door (or wherever) saying something along the lines of "we don't serve your kind here."
post #1866 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

You also can't be married to more than one person at a time.

Who says? Stupid, time honored, male-dominant traditions are ripe for legislative or judicial change.
post #1867 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Argentino View Post

Who says? Stupid, time honored, male-dominant traditions are ripe for legislative or judicial change.

That's from the text of the proposed Oklahoma law. Not me. I think if you're dumb enough to want the nagging of 20 wives, more power to you.
post #1868 of 5117
This is amazing, this article so encapsulates what Libertarians really are. I suggest you all read it to prevent yourself from falling victim to their scam They are evil, selfish children. Like Damien from the Omen. We should probably murder them at birth.

http://www.alternet.org/youre-not-boss-me-why-libertarianism-childish-sham

Quote:
Libertarians believe themselves controversial and cool. They're desperate to package themselves as dangerous rebels, but in reality they are champions of conformity. Their irreverence and their opposition to “political correctness” is little more than a fashion accessory, disguising their subservience to—for all their protests against the “political elite”—the real elite.

Ayn Rand is the rebel queen of their icy kingdom, villifying empathy and solidarity. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: “I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

Libertarians believe they are real rebels, because they’ve politicized the protest of children who scream through tears, “You’re not the boss of me.” The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile naïveté.

As much as libertarians boast of having a “political movement” gaining in popularity, “you’re not the boss of me” does not even rise to the most elementary level of politics. Aristotle translated “politics” into meaning “the things concerning the polis,” referring to the city, or in other words, the community. Confucius connected politics with ethics, and his ethics are attached to communal service with a moral system based on empathy. A political program, like that from the right, that eliminates empathy, and denies the collective, is anti-political.

Opposition to any conception of the public interest and common good, and the consistent rejection of any opportunity to organize communities in the interest of solidarity, is not only a vicious form of anti-politics, it is affirmation of America’s most dominant and harmful dogmas. In America, selfishness, like blue jeans or a black dress, never goes out of style. It is the style. The founding fathers, for all the hagiographic praise and worship they receive as ritual in America, had no significant interest in freedom beyond their own social station, regardless of the poetry they put on paper. Native Americans, women, black Americans, and anyone who did not own property could not vote, but “taxation without representation” was the rallying cry of the revolution. The founders reacted with righteous rage to an injustice to their class, but demonstrated no passion or prioritization of expanding their victory for liberty to anyone who did not look, think, or spend money like them.
post #1869 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Argentino View Post

Who says? Stupid, time honored, male-dominant traditions are ripe for legislative or judicial change.

To be fair, polygamy (as actually practiced) is a stupid, time-honoured, male-dominated tradition. There was maybe 1 society that I can think of that had anything resembling polyandrous marriage.

The rest was polygynous selling child wives to sixty year old men for a goat and a chicken.
Edited by Kajak - 3/15/15 at 10:41am
post #1870 of 5117
Thread Starter 
Sounds like we best get rid of pair bonding in general.
post #1871 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I don't think a government should be able to force individuals or organizations to do business with anyone they don't want to for whatever reason they want. With that bias being stated, I find it a bit unsettling the government forcing businesses to put signs on the door (or wherever) saying something along the lines of "we don't serve your kind here."

Really? That's kinda...wow.
post #1872 of 5117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Really? That's kinda...wow.

Actually, it was the philosophy of the US until the last 50 years or so, and to a limited extent, it still is. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created protected classes, that have been added to, which one cannot use as the basis for not wanting to do business with people. However, business owners are still free to discriminate against non-protected reasons if they have a legit cause. So really, it's not that crazy of an idea. In fact, I think it's kind of crazy you would so willingly believe it is the government's place to tell us whom we have to do business with.
post #1873 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Actually, it was the philosophy of the US until the last 50 years or so, and to a limited extent, it still is. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created protected classes, that have been added to, which one cannot use as the basis for not wanting to do business with people. However, business owners are still free to discriminate against non-protected reasons if they have a legit cause. So really, it's not that crazy of an idea. In fact, I think it's kind of crazy you would so willingly believe it is the government's place to tell us whom we have to do business with.

To be honest a fair amount American practices until the last 50 years or so did not reconcile with the much touted American ideals. So some people appear to long for the good ole days, it raises the hackles of others whose roots might be Asian, Jewish, Native, Latino, Black, etc. Basically non WASPS
Edited by Rumpelstiltskin - 3/15/15 at 2:41pm
post #1874 of 5117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

To be honest a fair amount American practices until the last 50 years or so did not reconcile with the much touted American ideals. So when it appears that some people seem to long for the good ole days, it raises the hackles of others whose roots might be Asian, Jewish, Native, Latino, Black, etc. Basically non WASPS

So Irish and Scottish, not to mention swarthy types like Italians would be in your list and all Catholics and atheists, right?

However, what raises the hackles or not of people does not mean the thought the government should have the power to force a business owner to do business with people he/she doesn't want to is something to dismiss without thought. You can keep playing the race card, and very badly too I might add, but that doesn't make you automatically correct. It's not longing "for the good ole days," as you tried to cast it to manipulate the framing, but rather continuing to question the role and extent of government power.

As you so pointedly ignored businesses actually do continue to have certain rights to discriminate so this should indicate there's more to the conversation than what you would desire there is.
post #1875 of 5117
Thread Starter 
Rumple, I suggest you read some of the thinking of Richard Epstein. He is roundly regarded as one of the top legal scholars alive, and apparently lacks hackles, as he is Jewish. He specifically makes the case for government allowing businesses to only conduct commerce with those people/organizations they wish too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob