Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[Aeson]

I realize that's not the same thing as this situation, but it comes down to the same basic principle of freedom. The price of freedom is *******s. It's an unavoidable price. The only way to get rid of *******s is to get rid of freedom. Is that worth it to you? Why not just rise above them and live your own life?

Why then do you say that you think medical care shouldn't be allowed to be denied? Watching your kid die if the staff at an ER doesn't want to help black people is just another price of freedom.

[Felch]

It's part of my consistent view that it's okay to restrict somebody's freedom if it saves a life. It's why I'm against abortion as well. A woman's freedom does not extend to killing anybody. A doctor's freedom does not extend to letting a preventable death occur.

[Kidlicious]

I'm liberal and I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. What liberal antipathy are you talking about?

Are you also in favor of forcing people to smoke pot?

[Ben Kenobi]

The self pitying *** routine gets a bit tiresome MrFun.

Was it ever fresh?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why then do you say that you think medical care shouldn't be allowed to be denied? Watching your kid die if the staff at an ER doesn't want to help black people is just another price of freedom.

Last I checked HIV treatment is included in Obamacare funding, and hearing aids are not. Are you suggesting that one being covered amounts to discrimination?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a petty tyranny, and a weird sort of bullying

What's so weird about it? Bullies force you to serve them through either physical force or force of law. That's all this is, is bullying. Oh, wait. I forgot. Being gay gives you a pass on obnoxious behavior.

[Ben Kenobi]

gay people were (and still are) very much made to be second class citizens by either the state governments or the federal government.

Better question - what would have to change in America for true equality to be achieved?

[Ben Kenobi]

I think that's a crude and unfair mischaracterization of most small town Americans.

Agreed. In my experiences with small-town America, I've seen nothing of the discrimination Mr. Fun attributes. Now, I don't know if Iowa is substantially different than the South, but it strikes me as rather surprising that Iowa would be a singular hotbed of prejudice. But then the KKK is from Indiana, so perhaps racism is a yankee pill.

Personally, I've seen very little of what I was taught and told about America from Canada too - Mr. Fun's opinions mirror theirs.

But then, what would I know, I'm just an outsider looking in. I was told that America is a violent, dirty country filled with racism and prejudice. Not a single one of those things are true. I live in predominantly black neighbourhood - I've lived in other such neighbourhoods before. I was told it would be filled with police oppression, and racism, and that's just not the case. There is far more in common where I come from and this little neighbourhood here than the differences between the two, even though one is 95 percent white folks and this one is more black than white. If anything - the crime was worse where I am from than here.

[100% Wolf]

I am honestly sick of the liberal antipathy towards stoners. There's far more money wasted, far more twisting of the Bill of Rights, and far more lives cruelly harmed by America's war on drugs than there was with the DoMA. They're both messed up, but one is a multi-billion dollar catastrophe that costs lives and fortunes, while the other is mostly about tax penalties and hospital visitation rights. They're orders of magnitude apart in terms of importance.

As far as the Arizona law goes, I just feel very strongly that people should be free to refuse any offer made to them. Nobody should ever be forced to bake a wedding cake. It's a petty tyranny, and a weird sort of bullying. Even if this results in some problems, those problems are the price we pay to live in a free country.

Mind altering drugs = choice
Being gay = not a choice
Yeah, I'm not surprised people are more concerned with gay rights than your ability to smoke a plant.

[Aeson]

It's part of my consistent view that it's okay to restrict somebody's freedom if it saves a life.

I just wanted to highlight that you have drawn a line in the gray area between "freedom" and "protection".

We'll draw different lines in that regard. I'm very comfortable with my line. It's been the default line that has seen the greatest period of advancement and prosperity the world has ever known. It obviously is economically harmful for business to turn down paying customers for stupid reasons like the color of their skin or who they like to shag. It obviously is wrong to ostracize people based on their ethnicity or sexuality. In this case I'd much rather we do a very little "harm" (which is actually a net benefit) to horribly misguided people than a greater harm (with negative net) to people who just happened to be born with darker skin or like the same sex.

[Ben Kenobi]

If it's economically harmful, then why is it necessary for the state to intervene? Surely businesses seeking a competitive advantage will provide their services to those looking for it. I don't see what's wrong with a business provider choosing their clients. We wouldn't force a business to provide services to a customer in arrears, so why should we force a business to take on a client they do not want?

[Ben Kenobi]

Mind altering drugs = choice
Being gay = not a choice
Yeah, I'm not surprised people are more concerned with gay rights than your ability to smoke a plant.

Since sexuality isn't a conscious choice, perhaps then we can force people to engage in sex.

[Aeson]

If it's economically harmful, then why is it necessary for the state to intervene? Surely businesses seeking a competitive advantage will provide their services to those looking for it.

Already addressed in this thread. Start here.

[Kidlicious]

I just wanted to highlight that you have drawn a line in the gray area between "freedom" and "protection".

We'll draw different lines in that regard. I'm very comfortable with my line. It's been the default line that has seen the greatest period of advancement and prosperity the world has ever known. It obviously is economically harmful for business to turn down paying customers for stupid reasons like the color of their skin or who they like to shag. It obviously is wrong to ostracize people based on their ethnicity or sexuality. In this case I'd much rather we do a very little "harm" (which is actually a net benefit) to horribly misguided people than a greater harm (with negative net) to people who just happened to be born with darker skin or like the same sex.

You're making too much of this. Some people didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. No one was refusing service to gays in general. MrFun seems to have gotten your panties in a bunch with his comparing this to Jim Crow.

[Aeson]

You're making too much of this. Some people didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. No one was refusing service to gays in general. MrFun seems to have gotten your panties in a bunch with his comparing this to Jim Crow.

I'm not worried about the cake. I am worried about the law. If you want a law that specifically says bakers can choose not to bake wedding cakes, that's fine. Absurd, but fine.

Passing laws that let anyone discriminate for any reason is obviously not fine (to anyone posting here, except Ben likely).

So we're in a situation where we can plunge 50 state legislatures into an never-endign battle over what types of services you can discriminate against ethnic groups/sexuality about and which you can't, or we could just not waste a ton of time and money to enable people to make stupid economic decisions that harm others that virtually no one on either side cared about a year ago.

I vote for the second option.