• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gays from discrimination

Harshaw said:
Never seen him say any such thing. I've seen plenty of people think that allowing a business to hire and fire as it sees fit, and serve or not serve customers as they see fit, is the same as advocating Jim Crow laws requiring discrimination, though, as I suspect you are doing here.
Click to expand...

So its okay to serve a customer or not based on race, gender or basically any reason anyone feels like?
 
Hari Seldon said:
So its okay to serve a customer or not based on race, gender or basically any reason anyone feels like?
Click to expand...

It's an entirely different question from advocating there be laws requiring discrimination, but you don't seem to grasp that difference.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How do you explain affirmitave action, diversity goals or preference point systems as being consistent with treating all people equally? Obviously, if you can legally favor one person with "good discriminaton" then that has the effect of disfavoring another.
Click to expand...

Easy thats not legal AA/EE this fact as been proven many times. AA/EE does not allow special consideration based on race, sex etc if any system in place does consider those things by definition its not AA/EE. :shrug:
Do orgs and people have programs that DO take into consideration those things? yep . . is it actually AA/EE? nope
 
AlbqOwl said:
But you see, I believe a moral and just society would not discriminate against a gay person just because the person was gay. I think educated people know that being gay is not a choice. And as long as gay people do not make assholes or obnoxious jerks out of themselves, they should be welcome anywhere just like everybody else is welcome unless they are assholes or obnoxious jerks. But the gay person who is an asshole or obnoxious jerk also has to understand that he or she is being rejected or excluded because of that and not because he or she is gay.

I for instance will accept you for who and what you are no matter what that is so long as you do not presume to violate my rights or my peace and accommodate whatever society you are in. I don't require that you like me, appreciate me, agree with me, or have anything to do with me, but so long as I am behaving myself, I would expect me to sell me a dozen doughnuts that you have for sale in your bakery. But if your merchandise does not include doughnuts with pink widget decorations and you do not approve of pink widgets for whatever reason, you should not have to make doughnuts with those decorations just because I demand them. You should have every right to decline that order.

You wouldn't be discriminating against me when you refuse the order, but you would be discriminating against pink widgets. And that should be anybody's right to do no matter who or what a person is.
Click to expand...

What I am interested in defending is the right of individuals to make their own judgments about the people they want to deal with. If most of the people of a state don't approve of homosexuals and don't want to enter into contracts for goods or services with them as private citizens, their right to do that is more important than any right to be accommodated any homosexual might assert. Whether I agree with or approve of the person doing the discriminating is irrelevant to his right to do it. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a moral command, and it is wrong to try to make it a legal one.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The rights of gay people should be a given for no other reason than they are people. Of course there is no reason that gays should not live where they choose, work when they qualify for jobs, or just be themselves wherever they are. This should be a cultural reality and part of the national morality.

But I object when gay people's desires and wants are given preference over other people's beliefs and moral center. Others should not be forced to change long standing definitions because gay people want them changed. The baker who does not believe in gay marriage for instance should not be allowed to interfere with that in any way, but neither should he be forced to participate in it in any way. He should not be able to deny a gay person purchase of a dozen doughnuts or cupcakes in the display case and should not refuse to prepare a special order of these for the gay person, but neither should he be forced to put decorations on a cake that he would not normally do nor set up a wedding cake at a gay wedding or anything else against his moral convictions. Likewise the gay baker should not be required to provide services at a Westboro Baptist function or any other function he sees as against his personal beliefs or convictions.

Gay people are absolutely entitled to their beliefs as much as any person is. But gay people should not be privileged to require others to believe in the same way any more than a straight person should be able to demand that gay people be straight, try to get straight, or be punished or ostracized because they are not.

It is not treating all citizens equally if some are forced to provide unusual services to others against their moral convictions. That is granting special privileges to some which skews equality.
Click to expand...

Nobody is forced to serve gays in the US and gays aren't granted any special privileges LMAO so no worries.
 
Harshaw said:
It's an entirely different question from advocating there be laws requiring discrimination, but you don't seem to grasp that difference.
Click to expand...

I grasp fine. Ask Henrin if he believes an owner of a sandwich shop gets to decide who he or she serves be it based on race, gender, religion, eye color etc.
 
Hari Seldon said:
I grasp fine. Ask Henrin if he believes an owner of a sandwich shop gets to decide who he or she serves be it based on race, gender, religion, eye color etc.
Click to expand...

No, you quite obviously do not grasp it judging by your post here.
 
You know, I have enough positions on things that are questionable to the general population that you don't need to make things up to attack me with.
 
Hari Seldon said:
I grasp fine. Ask Henrin if he believes an owner of a sandwich shop gets to decide who he or she serves be it based on race, gender, religion, eye color etc.
Click to expand...

And if he says "yes," then it still doesn't mean he advocates Jim Crow laws requiring discrimination.

So no, you really don't "grasp fine."
 
AGENT J said:
Nobody is forced to serve gays in the US and gays aren't granted any special privileges LMAO so no worries.
Click to expand...

Funny how your thoughts seem to center on your "A". You mention it in practically every post.
 
backpacker said:
Interesting, but I have trouble believing that is as widespread a problem as the a third of all gays and lesbians. There is only one LGBT treasurer :2razz:

I kind of knew the answer somewhat before I posted the question, or suspected this response. I know employers who purposefully toss applicants whose resume have anything to do with african american studies or related organizations. They may not turn away blacks generally, but have no interest in having someone they think might be political or an activist, so it is possible that your study may assume that it was because they were gay when it could also be because of the nature of the organizations as being, for lack of a better term, trouble-makers.
Click to expand...

why is it hard to believe? 1/3 of americans hate lgbt. All we're asking is they don't have the power to deny employment and housing based on that hate

The same study used a control - the other resume listed treasurer of a progressive and socialist club. I'm only pointing this out again because you called it interesting, but what i find interesting is this assumption that "political or activist" participation renders someone incapable of being professional. From my view, being in charge of a club's finances is relevant experience to a white collar job, and their decision to do so for that particular club can simply be they identify as lgbt...thus bringing us back to the *obvious* reason for this 40% difference - the employers in question despise lgbt and have no problem discriminating

Or is there some other reason they are 40% more likely to hire a socialist club treasurer and this gap is even wider in the south and midwest?
 
Harshaw said:
And if he says "yes," then it still doesn't mean he advocates Jim Crow laws requiring discrimination.

So no, you really don't "grasp fine."
Click to expand...
Per my buddy Henrin

"Oh and btw, forcing people into commerce is not civil behavior, so your entire line of reasoning is moot. Forced commerce is also kind of fascist, but well, you probably know that, but think you can reverse that fascist remark on me. "
 
Hari Seldon said:
Per my buddy Henrin

"Oh and btw, forcing people into commerce is not civil behavior, so your entire line of reasoning is moot. Forced commerce is also kind of fascist, but well, you probably know that, but think you can reverse that fascist remark on me. "
Click to expand...

If you think that shows he advocates that the law require businesses to discriminate, you really, really, really do NOT "grasp fine."
 
Hari Seldon said:
Per my buddy Henrin

"Oh and btw, forcing people into commerce is not civil behavior, so your entire line of reasoning is moot. Forced commerce is also kind of fascist, but well, you probably know that, but think you can reverse that fascist remark on me. "
Click to expand...

You should stop posting now. All you're doing at this point is reinforcing the belief that you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Hari Seldon said:
I grasp fine. Ask Henrin if he believes an owner of a sandwich shop gets to decide who he or she serves be it based on race, gender, religion, eye color etc.
Click to expand...

Do I understand that you think it is okay to discriminate against the owners of sandwich shops? That Congress should be allowed to make laws requiring such discrimination, that the USSC should rule to discriminate in a way that the Constitution forbids Congress from doing? Or did you mean the opposite?

;)
 
Harshaw said:
If you think that shows he advocates that the law require businesses to discriminate, you really, really, really do NOT "grasp fine."
Click to expand...

I never said a law that requires to discriminate. I included Loving v. Virginia in the overall tone of the post but no he would probably not be for anti-miscegenation laws. But in his world being "forced" to serve anyone coming into his public business constitutes "forced commerce". That's a fact jack and he says it constantly.
 
joG said:
Do I understand that you think it is okay to discriminate against the owners of sandwich shops? That Congress should be allowed to make laws requiring such discrimination, that the USSC should rule to discriminate in a way that the Constitution forbids Congress from doing? Or did you mean the opposite?

;)
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
joG said:
Funny how your thoughts seem to center on your "A". You mention it in practically every post.
Click to expand...

I like facts what can I say, when people ignore those facts nothing more is needed than to post them and then let them hang themselves denying them. And yes that is funny :)
 
Hari Seldon said:
I never said a law that requires to discriminate.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did:

Hari Seldon said:
Harshaw said:
In each of those cases, there was an actual law requiring the discrimination.
Click to expand...

Which Henrin agrees with.
Click to expand...

And I have been bolding the word "require" throughout this entire exchange, while you plodded on with arguing that indeed, Henrin does agree with such legal requirements.

Do you not read? Do you not understand what you read? Do you not understand your own posts? Or are you simply trying to dishonestly claim "never said" what you very much did say?

But in his world being "forced" to serve anyone coming into his public business constitutes "forced commerce". That's a fact jack and he says it constantly.
Click to expand...

So? You keep saying that as though it's meaningful to the point. It isn't.
 
Last edited:
Hari Seldon said:
I never said a law that requires to discriminate. I included Loving v. Virginia in the overall tone of the post but no he would probably not be for anti-miscegenation laws. But in his world being "forced" to serve anyone coming into his public business constitutes "forced commerce". That's a fact jack and he says it constantly.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with what you are talking about here. Henrin also made a comment "Who exactly isn't aware of the civil rights act? It's kind of hard to not notice it when your childhood school tried to brainwash you into supporting it and liberals are constantly trying to expand it."

The brainwashed part was pretty telling. The civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. How terrible apparently that Henrins school tried (they obviously didn't suceed) to educate him on it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You might want to reconsider that:

Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas
Click to expand...

I don't have to I'm familiar with that ruling and discussed at great length. It's exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe this is my fault and Im not being clear though. Ill repeat what I said and provide more info.

"Do orgs and people have programs that DO take into consideration those things? yep . . is it actually AA/EE? nope"

What this means is the university is calling their program AA but it is NOT AA/EE as defined BY THE GOVERNMENT which is VERY clearly defined. Hence why universities and buinsess and orgs get themselves in trouble many times because they MAKE THEIR OWN programs and name it AA. This is the very clear fact people have to understand. What the government calls AA/EE and regulates is NOT what this university is doing regardless of what the university calls it and again thats very clear to objective readers and people who understand what actuall AA/EE is and is further shown here with this qoute from your link.

"No. 14-981, concerned an unusual program and contained a warning to other universities that not all affirmative action programs (UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS NOT GOVERNMENT) will pass constitutional muster. But the ruling’s basic message was that admissions officials may continue to consider race as one factor among many in ensuring a diverse student body."

SO my statment is completely accurate, the issues is these other people call their programs the same thing. A similar confusion happens when discussing "marriage", there legal marriage, religious marriage, spiritual marriage etc etc but people often just say we are married or marriage is this. Well its not, one must be specific so when Agent J's University writes a program and calls it AA that doesn't make it GOVERNMENT DEFINE or LEGAL AA they may in fact be VERY different as stated above.

Let me know if I was more clear or you are still confused about what I said, thanks.
 
Hari Seldon said:
I never said a law that requires to discriminate. I included Loving v. Virginia in the overall tone of the post but no he would probably not be for anti-miscegenation laws. But in his world being "forced" to serve anyone coming into his public business constitutes "forced commerce". That's a fact jack and he says it constantly.
Click to expand...

You should look up the words force and commerce and then put them together to figure out why you're wrong. You know what, I will do it for you.

force- coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.

Commerce - an interchange of goods or commodities

So what happens when you compel someone to trade their property? :lol:
 
AGENT J said:
I don't have to I'm familiar with that ruling and discussed at great length. It's exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe this is my fault and Im not being clear though. Ill repeat what I said and provide more info.

"Do orgs and people have programs that DO take into consideration those things? yep . . is it actually AA/EE? nope"

What this means is the university is calling their program AA but it is NOT AA/EE as defined BY THE GOVERNMENT which is VERY clearly defined. Hence why universities and buinsess and orgs get themselves in trouble many times because they MAKE THEIR OWN programs and name it AA. This is the very clear fact people have to understand. What the government calls AA/EE and regulates is NOT what this university is doing regardless of what the university calls it and again thats very clear to objective readers and people who understand what actuall AA/EE is and is further shown here with this qoute from your link.

"No. 14-981, concerned an unusual program and contained a warning to other universities that not all affirmative action programs (UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS NOT GOVERNMENT) will pass constitutional muster. But the ruling’s basic message was that admissions officials may continue to consider race as one factor among many in ensuring a diverse student body."

SO my statment is completely accurate, the issues is these other people call their programs the same thing. A similar confusion happens when discussing "marriage", there legal marriage, religious marriage, spiritual marriage etc etc but people often just say we are married or marriage is this. Well its not, one must be specific so when Agent J's University writes a program and calls it AA that doesn't make it GOVERNMENT DEFINE or LEGAL AA they may in fact be VERY different as stated above.

Let me know if I was more clear or you are still confused about what I said, thanks.
Click to expand...

Essentially AA laws prevent discrimination against minorities. The rules from this university is not discrimination but is instead preferential. Is that it in a nut shell?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom