Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[Aeson]

That's how freedom of association works. Arguing that a business must supply a client is wrong. The business can protect itself by declining business that it does not want or need.

A business cannot continue to operate at a loss, and if a business believes that it's own interests are jeopardized by a particular client, that is their judgment call to make.

Well, then, the law is essential in order to protect their constitutional rights from people who do not respect them. That's why laws get made. You can either respect their constitutional rights, or watch as laws get passed when folks choose to disregard them.

Arguing that the constitution doesn't protect them when it does seems to shatter the merit of the 14th amendment argument of your side. If you can disregard the 1st amendment, then what authority does the 14th have?

Just to be clear, do you think the Civil Rights Act is wrong to disallow businesses (of specified types) from discriminating based on "race, color, religion, or national origin"?

[Aeson]

You can either respect their constitutional rights, or watch as laws get passed when folks choose to disregard them.

I can watch as bigots try to pass bigoted laws, and laugh at them when they fail ... It's rather encouraging that even in Kansas and Arizona these laws are having trouble getting passed. We've progressed greatly

[Aeson]

Well, then, the law is essential in order to protect their constitutional rights from people who do not respect them.

When it's SCOTUS that "do not respect them", it's rather absurd to try to create a new law that SCOTUS will just strike down as unconstitutional.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just to be clear, do you think the Civil Rights Act is wrong to disallow businesses (of specified types) from discriminating based on "race, color, religion, or national origin"?

There's a difference between private businesses and public institutions. I believe that private businesses and churches should be permitted to discriminate however they see fit. If a church doesn't want to admit black people - that is their right. If a business doesn't want to hire and serve black people - that is their right. In addition, if someone wishes to voluntarily leave a business association, or a church - that is their right too. The state should no more require attendance, then it should bar conversion.

With respect to public institutions - I believe they have an obligation to provide their services to all. This would include schooling, public transit, etc. In short - if people are being taxed to pay for something, then they have an equal right to the use of the institution.

The Civil Rights Act, is being misused by folks who don't understand what it actually said.

The Civil Rights act applies to everyone. White or black, men or woman. You've stated earlier that you believe it's appropriate to discriminate against white people in order to compensate for perceived previous injustices. The problem is that the Civil Rights Act says nothing of the sort. The intent was never to take other people's rights away in order to help everyone exercise their rights.

Two, I don't see how you can expand the provision of the Civil Rights Act to groups that it did not, and was not designed to cover. You're arguing, "we can expand x to y", but that's just not the case. The Civil Rights act doesn't apply to marriage, nor does it apply to homosexuals.

If you honestly wish it to be extended - there's a legislative process to do so. The debate should be on it's own merits and not piggybacking off of the Civil Rights Act.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can watch as bigots try to pass bigoted laws, and laugh at them when they fail ... It's rather encouraging that even in Kansas and Arizona these laws are having trouble getting passed. We've progressed greatly

Have we? How exactly have we progressed?

In 1960 - 90 percent of all children were born into an intact home, with a married father and mother. Today it's closer to 55. More children are growing up in poverty, in broken homes, and are repeating the cycle set out before them.

Is that progress? Standards of living since 2000 haven't taken a single step forward. They have uniformly declined. People today are less likely to have employment than they did in 1978.

When adjusted for real net wages - people are making less today too. Prices of everything, including food, and housing have shot up.

Where's the progress? That we've traded in a rotary dial for an iphone?

[Ben Kenobi]

When it's SCOTUS that "do not respect them", it's rather absurd to try to create a new law that SCOTUS will just strike down as unconstitutional.

Where did SCOTUS abolish the First Amendment and freedom of association?

[Aeson]

You've stated earlier that you believe it's appropriate to discriminate against white people in order to compensate for perceived previous injustices.

Nope. I think you're having a conversation with a figment of your imagination.

If you honestly wish it to be extended - there's a legislative process to do so. The debate should be on it's own merits and not piggybacking off of the Civil Rights Act.

Nice strawman, but I'm not saying the Civil Rights Act covers homosexuals. I do think an understanding of why the Civil Rights Act was important would naturally lead to the conclusion that sexuality should have the same protections. But it's not part of the law. Just good sense.

Have we? How exactly have we progressed?

In regards to discrimination based on ethnicity/sexuality ... definitely. Even backwards states that have been lagging are having trouble passing anti-gay laws anymore. It must be heartbreaking for bigots to see.

In some other areas we may have regressed. Those other areas aren't the topic of discussion though.

Where did SCOTUS abolish the First Amendment and freedom of association?

SCOTUS disagrees with your interpretation of the First ... that isn't the same thing as abolishing the First.

[Kidlicious]

Have we? How exactly have we progressed?

In 1960 - 90 percent of all children were born into an intact home, with a married father and mother. Today it's closer to 55. More children are growing up in poverty, in broken homes, and are repeating the cycle set out before them.

Is that progress? Standards of living since 2000 haven't taken a single step forward. They have uniformly declined. People today are less likely to have employment than they did in 1978.

When adjusted for real net wages - people are making less today too. Prices of everything, including food, and housing have shot up.

Where's the progress? That we've traded in a rotary dial for an iphone?

What does that have to do with gay rights or popular acceptance of homosexuals?

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope. I think you're having a conversation with a figment of your imagination.

So you believe it's wrong then for 'blacks only' clubs to exclude white people?

Nice strawman, but I'm not saying the Civil Rights Act covers homosexuals.

Then why are you drawing an analogy between the two?

I do think an understanding of why the Civil Rights Act was important would naturally lead to the conclusion that sexuality should have the same protections.

That would be the argument contra sodomy restrictions - not marriage. And even then, it's questionable. There are regulations against certain forms of sexuality. There's no freedom of 'sexual expression', that permits free and open sex at any place at any time.

But it's not part of the law. Just good sense.

If someone told you he were gay how would you go about proving this to be true?

In regards to discrimination based on ethnicity/sexuality ... definitely. Even backwards states that have been lagging are having trouble passing anti-gay laws anymore. It must be heartbreaking for bigots to see.

So you regard this as the sole measure of progress?

In some other areas we may have regressed. Those other areas aren't the topic of discussion though.

So then the quotes by Gramsci aren't considered to be pertinent?

SCOTUS disagrees with your interpretation of the First

Where?

that isn't the same thing as abolishing the First.

It's your assertion. Where's the evidence for it.

[Ben Kenobi]

What does that have to do with gay rights or popular acceptance of homosexuals?

Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society."

Recognize this quote? You were a commie.

his first task was to put radical sex education in the school it was the best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the family. children learned free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived man of pleasure. Children were urged to deride and ignore parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.

We are bearing the fruits of this in the weakening of the family in general. Gramsci figured this out a century ago that this was the correct course of action.

[Aeson]

So you believe it's wrong then for 'blacks only' clubs to exclude white people?

I think it's wrong to discriminate based on race, yes.

Then why are you drawing an analogy between the two?

I did not.

You said businesses should be able to discriminate. I just wanted you to clarify that your position is that any business should be able to discriminate against black people if they want.

That would be the argument contra sodomy restrictions - not marriage. And even then, it's questionable. There are regulations against certain forms of sexuality. There's no freedom of 'sexual expression', that permits free and open sex at any place at any time.

I don't know why you want to drag marriage into this.

What I meant was that if you understand why discrimination against black is bad ... that race is a piss poor way of judging a person ... that it would become clear that other piss poor ways of judging a person like sexuality would also clearly be bad.

If someone told you he were gay how would you go about proving this to be true?

It doesn't matter if I can prove it or not ... I just shouldn't discriminate against him because he's gay. (This holds true whether he's gay or not.)

So you regard this as the sole measure of progress?

Don't be silly. There are many measures of progress.

If it were a thread on processing power the applicable progress would be technological. It's a thread about discrimination laws though, so that's the context.

It's your assertion. Where's the evidence for it.

The evidence for the First not having been abolished is that it's still in the Constitution.

The evidence for SCOTUS interpreting the First differently than you is in their upholding the Civil Rights Act rather than ruling it unconstitutional as you claim it is.

Both of these things are readily evident.

[Sava]

In related news here is an article with a shocking NSFW photo of a gay person in Uganda getting lynched and burned to death for being gay.

http://www.ynaija.com/shocking-gay-m...er-discretion/

A victory for religious freedom

[Kidlicious]

Groups should be able to associate together without non-group members around. Black people should be able to have a space for themselves without white people around. That's not discrimination. That's pursuit of happiness.

[100% Wolf]

A victory for religious freedom

With the traditional family model safe and secure Uganda will surely have a bright and prosperous future of capitalism.

[Sava]

With the traditional family model safe and secure Uganda will surely have a bright and prosperous future of capitalism.

Absolutely

as long as they continue to not pay attention to the things Jesus taught