quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

in general, society isn't as discriminatory as it was then.

Oh really??
I think this bill proves otherwise
the question is, why should you be allowed to discriminate because of your religious objections only??
and so many yowls about muslims being jerks....
anti gay discrimination is discrimination, not equality, not fair, and typical ignorance in standing up for it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

That`s not what they are doing in AZ.......

Your dishonesty doesn`t have the same novelty it used to.......

I didn't claim it was what they were doing in Arizona. You're making shit up again. I was addressing the broader issue that was raised. The trick is to actually read the posts in a thread, you see? Try it, you'll get it. It just takes time. More for some people, of course, but practice makes perfect.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
celebrating a won freedom/rights/nondiscrimination isnt worth celebrating?
Fuck, I celebrate being alive
how dare I

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
I don't have a problem with a business owner making the decision not to serve gays. In fact I think they should put a sign in their window stating that so I know to take my money elsewhere. I don't understand why someone would want to support a business that takes this stand, yet not only do they want to, they go to court for the right to do so. Sorry but I don't like giving my hard earned cash to bigots. While I think they have the right to feel the way they do for what ever reason, I also have the right to shop elsewhere. I am sure there is a gay friendly equivalent that would welcome the extra business.

And if there isn't? What about towns with one pharmacy? or some other service? Would you be so sanguine then?

There is that internet thingy...
So, what you would have is an underserved portion of the population. Know what the Market calls that? Opportunity
Some entrepreneur will see the opportunity and take advantage of it. This will also likely place economic pressure on the discriminating business, to change or fail.
Boy, that would surely suck if the Market were allowed to work...

Do you know any black people older than about 60? Ask them if they ever traveled before 1970. See how the market worked for them.

Have you not noticed that things have changed? I have acknowledged that the conditions were such that Government needed to act. I even stated that it was a sad commentary that government had to act. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but, in general, society isn't as discriminatory as it was then.

The changes that have happened in the infrastructure of the US (and world) certainly makes the landscape different and more even, regardless of racism.

Some dumbass punk gets killed across the country, and you can hear about it within hours. How quickly do we hear of events in Sochi? FFS, we can see them real-time, if we want. It's an awful lot harder to get away with bullshit now than it was back then. You seem to want to live as if the past realities are still in effect when they are not.

You want the US Constitution changed to reflect changing realities, but don't want government action to change with changing realities. Go figure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Let me take you up on your market argument. I don't know if I can't express this well, and maybe there's a flaw in my thinking, but here's how I'm looking at it. For there to be a market a consumer has to have options. Say you need a car. You can't afford a BMW, but you can buy a much less expensive Chevy instead. After all, a car is a car. But say what you need is triple bypass surgery. You can get an appendectomy for a fraction of the price, but what fucking good will it do you? I just don't see how a market can be expected to cope with such a disparate situation.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” JFK

Like the right of free association? Why should any individual or group of individuals, no matter who they are, have the power to compel others to associate with them? Forcing people into close contact with others who are antagonistic to them seems a poof formula for achieving bliss and harmony.

K.

That`s not what they are doing in AZ.......


Your dishonesty doesn`t have the same novelty it used to.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Let me take you up on your market argument. I don't know if I can't express this well, and maybe there's a flaw in my thinking, but here's how I'm looking at it. Say you need a car. You can't afford a BMW, but you can buy a much less expensive Chevy instead. After all, a car is a car. But say what you need is triple bypass surgery. You can get an appendectomy for a fraction of the price, but what fucking good will it do you? I just don't see how a market can be expected to cope with such a disparate situation.
K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Let me take you up on your market argument. I don't know if I can't express this well, and maybe there's a flaw in my thinking, but here's how I'm looking at it. Say you need a car. You can't afford a BMW, but you can buy a much less expensive Chevy instead. After all, a car is a car. But say what you need is triple bypass surgery. You can get an appendectomy for a fraction of the price, but what fucking good will it do you? I just don't see how a market can be expected to cope with such a disparate situation.
K.

Nope. You can't express it well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Let me take you up on your market argument. I don't know if I can't express this well, and maybe there's a flaw in my thinking, but here's how I'm looking at it. Say you need a car. You can't afford a BMW, but you can buy a much less expensive Chevy instead. After all, a car is a car. But say what you need is triple bypass surgery. You can get an appendectomy for a fraction of the price, but what fucking good will it do you? I just don't see how a market can be expected to cope with such a disparate situation.
K.

Nope. You can't express it well.

I would think that if we're going to claim that we have a "free market," then it would seem that every citizen should have an equal right to have access to and participate in the free market. If a certain segment of the citizenry is denied access to the free market just because of who they are, then it's not really a "free" market, is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Well Its up to Brewer to sign it or not.... ANother republican *Mr Flake* I believe, has tweeted he hopes that she vetoes it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Let me take you up on your market argument. I don't know if I can't express this well, and maybe there's a flaw in my thinking, but here's how I'm looking at it. Say you need a car. You can't afford a BMW, but you can buy a much less expensive Chevy instead. After all, a car is a car. But say what you need is triple bypass surgery. You can get an appendectomy for a fraction of the price, but what fucking good will it do you? I just don't see how a market can be expected to cope with such a disparate situation.
K.

Nope. You can't express it well.

I would think that if we're going to claim that we have a "free market," then it would seem that every citizen should have an equal right to have access to and participate in the free market. If a certain segment of the citizenry is denied access to the free market just because of who they are, then it's not really a "free" market, is it?

When business is free to determine how it's run, then the customers are free to choose where to do business. A business not selling to a certain segment based on any discriminating point doesn't bar them from the Market all together. You could say the Market isn't free because the poor can't afford mansions, but that's not accurate by any stretch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
The republicans name in Arizona is called Jeff Flake.
He is the one that tweeted that Brewer veto the bill.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/198979-sen-flake-hopes-ariz-governor-vetoes-anti-gay-bill#ixzz2u9eKmjm7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
It's not a question of determining how a business is run. If a business is open and inviting the general public to come in and buy their wares, then the government might find it necessary to protect the public interest, whether it's enforcing public health codes, building safety standards, weights and measures, or whatever the case may be. Sure, a business is free to determine how it's run (at least as far as the business itself goes), but if it chooses to do business with the public at large and duly licensed and zoned as such, then there might be other rules they have to follow.
Businesses are part of a larger community, too, so it's not just a matter of one private individual doing whatever he wants on his own property. If, for example, you owned a business and I owned a business right next door (perhaps in the same shopping complex), if one of us chose to discriminate, it could hurt the other business simply by being next door. Other businesses could also be affected or even an entire neighborhood of shops.
As to your point about the poor not being to afford mansions, it's not really a matter of affordability, although housing discrimination has been a serious issue during our history. Our society has determined that the free market was not able to solve the issue left to its own devices, so the government had to step in and deal with it.
In any case, I don't think it's analogous, since prohibiting discrimination doesn't entail giving someone something they can't afford. Under the same principles of the free market, if I can afford something, shouldn't that be the seller's only consideration? Overall, it just seems a bad business decision to turn away paying customers for such a frivolous and non-business-related reason. It just seems a better policy to keep things strictly business and not personal, as it were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Right, and pricing something so high that you define your customer base, discriminating against other parts of the general public, then...

quote:


As long as business is open and honest about their practices, the general public can make an informed choice. Wouldn't you rather know who was a bigot, and who wasn't? Wouldn't you rather support the non-bigot?