Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Appeals Court Rules

JANFU said:

Some will, some will not. Nothing negative they say concerns or bothers me.

Click to expand...

Amen, my friend. My religious standing is between me and my deity. No human has the authority to determine that status.

maquiscat said:

Well this is an odd criteria. If paying taxes is a criteria as to whether or not an entity, business or individual, should be able to discriminate, then we should be fining people if they choose to not shop at a business because it is minority owned (really it could also apply to being due to white and/or male owed as well), and non profit and tax exempt organizations can readily discriminate.



The problem is the premise that a business is opened with the intent to interact with any and all individuals. A business should be allowed to open with the intent of never doing business with whites, or with trans females only. It's not very good business sense, but there is nothing that requires the exercise of one's rights to be good sense, especially since "good sense" is a subjective value. Now I am all for the idea that if one would limit their customer base, then it should be readily posted for all to see. But this idea that one is automatically opening a business to be open to all is wrong.

Click to expand...

And that my friend is where you and I differ. I see you are Libertarian, fine with me. If I was Libertarian I think it would be Lib Left. Going by the little I know.

JANFU said:

And that my friend is where you and I differ. I see you are Libertarian, fine with me. If I was Libertarian I think it would be Lib Left. Going by the little I know.

Click to expand...

I noticed that you completely failed to address the first paragraph.

As far as being Libertarian, I don't know if I'd be right or left. Most social issues I am left on, while very right fiscally. However, I am first and foremost about freedom, even if it would allow actions that I personally oppose. I believe more in social pressure than force of law on quite a number of issues. I still believe in law and the rule of law overriding majority rule. There are many things we need to have in law to prevent the harm of one by another. The problem comes in that some will see certain actions as harmful where others do not.

JANFU said:

And that my friend is where you and I differ. I see you are Libertarian, fine with me. If I was Libertarian I think it would be Lib Left. Going by the little I know.

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you liked the post that I initially responded to this with. But I would really like to address the point you made that because a business pays taxes the owner need to give up his freedom of association rights and private property rights for certain subsets but not for others.

maquiscat said:

I'm glad that you liked the post that I initially responded to this with. But I would really like to address the point you made that because a business pays taxes the owner need to give up his freedom of association rights and private property rights for certain subsets but not for others.

Click to expand...

I liked it as you were clear in your views, and I have seen this POV many times from Libertarians

maquiscat said:

I noticed that you completely failed to address the first paragraph.

As far as being Libertarian, I don't know if I'd be right or left. Most social issues I am left on, while very right fiscally. However, I am first and foremost about freedom, even if it would allow actions that I personally oppose. I believe more in social pressure than force of law on quite a number of issues. I still believe in law and the rule of law overriding majority rule. There are many things we need to have in law to prevent the harm of one by another. The problem comes in that some will see certain actions as harmful where others do not.

Click to expand...

I support laws that prevent/punish discrimination. That provides persons protections and the rule of law, if needed, when needed to use.
When one enters into business, they serve all, regardless of color, sex, sexual orientation and such.

While you support the free market to exert pressure on a business that say discriminated against a specific class. Myself, I support having laws to prevent/rein in those behaviors.
Overall I see discrimination as harmful to society as a whole.

JANFU said:

I liked it as you were clear in your views, and I have seen this POV many times from Libertarians

I support laws that prevent/punish discrimination. That provides persons protections and the rule of law, if needed, when needed to use.
When one enters into business, they serve all, regardless of color, sex, sexual orientation and such.

While you support the free market to exert pressure on a business that say discriminated against a specific class. Myself, I support having laws to prevent/rein in those behaviors.
Overall I see discrimination as harmful to society as a whole.

Click to expand...

The bold we agree on. It is the method of combat where we disagree.

As I see it, when you tell a business whom they can and cannot do business with, it is no longer a free market. Freedom of association and private property rights are not issues of harm to one by another.

Additionally you only support laws that prevent/punish discrimination for certain criteria. Be honest about that at least. Where is the call to prevent discrimination against hair color, or clothing choice, or any other number of things that we discriminate against daily.

And again I ask you, what does having to pay taxes have to do for whether or not a business is allowed to discriminate or not. Customers pay taxes, yet they are allowed to discriminate against a business even on the basis of protected classes. Non-profits do not pay taxes, and most are not allowed to discriminate. I keep asking about this specific point you made and you keep avoiding it.

And finally thank you for noting that I was clear in my presentation of my views and points. While it may seem so to me, I realize that it is not always so to others. I am happy when I can get my point across, even if one does not agree with it.

The 1964 CRA was never intended to apply to sexual orientation. If they want to provide such protection now, the law should be modified.