[Rugoz]

The CEO of Mozilla was fired due to making political donations opposing same sex marriage. It happens all the time.

He wasn't fired. He resigned freely according to himself and Mozilla. Whether that is accurate is another question, but it means he cannot sue.

[Verv]

:roll: No irony. Not even comparable. Refusing service based on discrimination is not permissible nor considered freedom of expression. You're trying to conflate completely different things.

I disagree with your assessment of what the first amendment (and what freedom) means.

I do not have the right to make anybody do a task for me that they do not want to do.

I also do not have the right to make a demand for sustained employment from someone. If the contract is made in such a way that there are other agreements in place, so be it, and the business would have to honor that contract. But there should be nothing that prevents any form of discrimination for privately run businesses and organizations.

I honestly can't imagine that the Founding Fathers envisioned anything different.

Of course, we just probably have fundamentally different views of the Constitution .And that is fine. The Constitution is scarcely relevant anymore in the way that I would reference it, or believe in it. Which is exactly why I no longer actively promote it or believe in it. It's just a piece of paper that is now used to justify all manner of things. I can merely be thankful that it at least handicaps some of the efforts of the government to fulfill their agenda.

In response to Zamuel:

There is a generally good example of the Atlanta fire chief. Just under some vague idea that he privately believes homosexuality is wrong it is enough to get him fired even though there is no evidence that this affects his practices.

We also had a fellow driven out of municipal employment for refusing to remove a Bible on his desk.

These aren't particularly early examples, though, which would have been ideal. I just do not have time to research them all.



I was thinking of the example given in the film Out at Work concerning Cantor Fitzgerald when I wrote it.

Making an obscene gesture at the leader of the free world could have consequences in the sense that your employer would eb upset because they may disagree with either the obscenity or the nature of the political statmeent.

EDIT: I have been gone for a while and I am no longer familiar with how to make the BBCode sing. Forgive me.

[Godstud]

I do not have the right to make anybody do a task for me that they do not want to do.

Have you ever, in your life, been employed?? You don't have a right to make someone do a task for you that they do not want to do. If, however, it's a part of their job, you can fire their ass. You can only have a right not to do it, if it is unsafe. OSHA will back you up.

You have a right to not like homosexuals. That's freedom of expression. That's the 1st Amendment at work. You do NOT, however, have a right to deny them service because of YOUR beliefs. That's called discrimination, and most modern societies are trying to get rid of this archaic form of traditionalist nonsense.

But there should be nothing that prevents any form of discrimination for privately run businesses and organizations.

So you agree with segregation of blacks and white? You're OK with that kind of discrimination?

I cannot deny you service at my restaurant simply because you come in wearing a cross on a chain, even though I don't think Christians are generally good people. Is it OK for me to have a restaurant that has a sign up saying "No Christians"? Really??? Do I also have a right to deny people service, who have beards?

You're essentially saying that discrimination/prejudice is OK, as long as the government isn't doing it. Have you even thought this through?

I honestly can't imagine that the Founding Fathers envisioned anything different.

I don't think you have a clue what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Making an obscene gesture at the leader of the free world could have consequences in the sense that your employer would eb upset because they may disagree with either the obscenity or the nature of the political statmeent.

Yet people have done worse than merely flip off the President, and they are within their rights to do so. Your feelings about this seem to be the main factor, as you see it as "obscene" and seem not not like "the nature of the political statement". Those are opinions about how you feel about it.

Was anyone actually hurt by this? Aside from feelings, I mean...

[Zamuel]

? In your last post you attributed a statement to me that I'm pretty sure I didn't make, and I don't think it is even from this thread.

Zamuel wrote:

There is a generally good example of the Atlanta fire chief. Just under some vague idea that he privately believes homosexuality is wrong it is enough to get him fired even though there is no evidence that this affects his practices.

We also had a fellow driven out of municipal employment for refusing to remove a Bible on his desk.

These aren't particularly early examples, though, which would have been ideal. I just do not have time to research them all.

Not sure how this happened? but please edit your post and remove my name.

I disagree with your assessment of what the first amendment (and what freedom) means. -

- The Constitution is scarcely relevant anymore in the way that I would reference it, or believe in it. Which is exactly why I no longer actively promote it or believe in it.

You're right, we disagree.

Zam

[Verv]

:lol: Have you ever, in your life, been employed?? You don't have a right to make someone do a task for you that they do not want to do. If, however, it's a part of their job, you can fire their ass. You can only have a right not to do it, if it is unsafe. OSHA will back you up.

Correct. That is the freedom that an employer has over his property. The same freedom should allow him to determine who his customers are.

You have a right to not like homosexuals. That's freedom of expression. That's the 1st Amendment at work. You do NOT, however, have a right to deny them service because of YOUR beliefs. That's called discrimination, and most modern societies are trying to get rid of this archaic form of traditionalist nonsense.

So you agree with segregation of blacks and white? You're OK with that kind of discrimination?

I cannot deny you service at my restaurant simply because you come in wearing a cross on a chain, even though I don't think Christians are generally good people. Is it OK for me to have a restaurant that has a sign up saying "No Christians"? Really??? Do I also have a right to deny people service, who have beards?

You're essentially saying that discrimination/prejudice is OK, as long as the government isn't doing it. Have you even thought this through?

I think a business owner should be allowed to do whatever he wants with his property. Just as I have a right to determine who can and can't come into my home, I should likewise have a right to determine who can and cannot come to my business.

So yeah, if that means someone does not want to serve gays or black people, that's their right. Likewise, it also means that a gay bar can choose to only serve LGBTQ people or their "allies."

I think most people do not bother each other with this kind of thing, or that change can occur independently.

I am a little bit surprised that you thought I (or someone else) would balk at this.

This is still PoFo, right? Like, people have non-mainstream ideas here sometimes, right?

I don't think you have a clue what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Yet people have done worse than merely flip off the President, and they are within their rights to do so. Your feelings about this seem to be the main factor, as you see it as "obscene" and seem not not like "the nature of the political statement". Those are opinions about how you feel about it.

Was anyone actually hurt by this? Aside from feelings, I mean...

So what do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned? Endless latino immigration and transgender people collecting welfare while marrying each other?

They envisioned free white people with minimal government and maximum freedom.

... Or ... Were they not total bigots and regressives in that way?

... "My feelings" do not really matter. She flipped off the President of the United States; her employer has the right to fire her (or he should) and that was an obscene act (which was exactly why she did it -- a universal sign of disdain).

[Verv]

? In your last post you attributed a statement to me that I'm pretty sure I didn't make, and I don't think it is even from this thread.


Not sure how this happened? but please edit your post and remove my name.


You're right, we disagree.

Zam

Yeah, it was some kind of mistake. I have not been using BBCode for a long time, lol, and I was doing that post from work.

I have edited it and perhaps you can now make a reply.

[Zamuel]

Yeah, it was some kind of mistake. I have not been using BBCode for a long time, lol, and I was doing that post from work. I have edited it and perhaps you can now make a reply.

Thank you for correcting that. As I recall, in your original post, you said this:

The Constitution is scarcely relevant anymore in the way that I would reference it, or believe in it. Which is exactly why I no longer actively promote it or believe in it.

As I see it - The Constitution provides a vital and cohesive foundation for all state law. This factor allows our union and facilitates reciprocity. Without these things a federation of individual states would not be possible.

It provides open and transparent means for alteration of it's own content by the will of the people it governs. A methodology that has proven itself through several modifications.

The essence of your criticism, I think, is best summed up by "in the way that I would reference it." The constitution isn't there exclusively for you. It serves us all. I imagine most of us disagree with parts of what it has become, but, democratic society is based on disagreement.

The only way to enforce conformity is through physical coercion. The US constitution imposes a minimum of that and that is what "The People" have chosen. Love it or leave it.

Zam

[One Degree]

As I see it - The Constitution provides a vital and cohesive foundation for all state law. This factor allows our union and facilitates reciprocity. Without these things a federation of individual states would not be possible.

@Zamuel , this is where you miss an important point. Our constitution changed a confederacy into a federation. It contains compromises. This allows for ongoing arguments about the power the federal government should have. So, for you to base your logic upon ‘federation’ is not the whole story.

[Zamuel]

@Zamuel , this is where you miss an important point. Our constitution changed a confederacy into a federation. It contains compromises. This allows for ongoing arguments about the power the federal government should have. So, for you to base your logic upon ‘federation’ is not the whole story.

Indeed, compromise, and disagreement, and a process for resolution (which has been exercised several times.) I never claimed this was the whole story ... I expressed my personal resolve that this is a key factor in my ongoing support of the constitution.

Inre: Free speech - I think one of the major points in this event is the "fear factor." The employer expressed "fear" of government reprisal (Very Unconstitutional) and the lady mentioned the Kaepernick Dilemma as another example of presidential influence on peoples lives. I'll point to McCabe's vindictive firing as another example. This is an insidious addition to the American dialogue. Fear your leader ? Fear to freely express yourself ? Expect retribution if you oppose government ? Are we going back to the days of blacklisting and the government enforced conformity of the McCarthy era? (Wouldn't Trump love that!)

Zam

[One Degree]

Indeed, compromise, and disagreement, and a process for resolution (which has been exercised several times.) I never claimed this was the whole story ... I expressed my personal resolve that this is a key factor in my ongoing support of the constitution.

Inre: Free speech - I think one of the major points in this event is the "fear factor." The employer expressed "fear" of government reprisal (Very Unconstitutional) and the lady mentioned the Kaepernick Dilemma as another example of presidential influence on peoples lives. I'll point to McCabe's vindictive firing as another example. This is an insidious addition to the American dialogue. Fear your leader ? Fear to freely express yourself ? Expect retribution if you oppose government ? Are we going back to the days of blacklisting and the government enforced conformity of the McCarthy era? (Wouldn't Trump love that!)

Zam

Very good points. I would only argue the left is pursuing McCarthy much more than Trump.

[Godstud]

I think a business owner should be allowed to do whatever he wants with his property. Just as I have a right to determine who can and can't come into my home, I should likewise have a right to determine who can and cannot come to my business.

Yes, a very regressive Libertarian view, and also bad for society as a whole, if everyone started to decide who, and who could not, enter their business.

Personal beliefs are fine, until they affect the lives of others. That's where your "freedoms" end in a progressive and modern society.

That is the freedom that an employer has over his property.

Employees are not property, and as such have rights.

Endless latino immigration and transgender people collecting welfare while marrying each other?

I am quite sure that the Founding Fathers had no idea how the world would change in 200+ years. I am sure they didn't envision slavery ending, space travel, high literacy rates, and computers.

The Founding Fathers, while quite progressive... for 1776. I am sure they did envision immigration, since USA was created by immigrants FOR immigrants. Remember that Statue of Liberty? Tons of conservatives , like you, forget it pretty quickly, when the immigration issue arises.

WTF do transgender people marrying, have to do with anything? Your feelings I suspect. You find it disgusting, so you bring it up. Argument based on feelings, again.

Also, your "feelings" are what makes you think that "the finger" is obscene, so don't talk to me about your feelings not being involved. I don't find the finger obscene. Offensive? Maybe. It's very subjective and a symbol of disdain is not the same as being "obscene".

Disdain : the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.

Obscene: (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.

[Verv]

The only way to enforce conformity is through physical coercion. The US constitution imposes a minimum of that and that is what "The People" have chosen. Love it or leave it.

Zam

Yes.

I left it. I have not lived in the United States since 2005 and have no plans to return to live there permanently.

I am very hopeful about President Trump, though, but I feel very "black pilled" about the state of the Union and the future of America. I think nobody would say there is anything wrong with that -- it is a common enough feeling from both left and right. My real loyalties still exist to my real American brethren that I grew up with and who I do know well. But the vision that we have of America, where I am from, and the vision that California and other progressives have, are very mutually exclusive, and it does not make as much sense as it once did for us to be united in our fates.

Sometimes, a couple should consider a divorce because that is simply what is best for the kids. We should at least get some unofficial separation and take a break from each other until one of us changes our minds.

[Verv]

Yes, a very regressive Libertarian view, and also bad for society as a whole, if everyone started to decide who, and who could not, enter their business.

This operates from the assumption that people would probably take total advantage of this situation. I simply do not think that is the case. I think most people run businesses to make money.

Especially this would be true now -- you could even say that maybe it was necessary to have a temporary injunction on this in the 1960s and 1970s when there was still some enforced elements of segregation via private business, and that these could not be eroded without government help. But it is certainly true now that anyone who would engage in these practices actively would be shouted down and boycotted.

HEck, we have people boycotted bcause the business owners are conservatives, see Chick-Fil-A.

Personal beliefs are fine, until they affect the lives of others. That's where your "freedoms" end in a progressive and modern society.

So my personal beliefs are fine... But I should not be allowed to live by these personal beliefs if it affects someone else? This is pretty overbearing and not my idea of "liberty."

If liberal democracy means this, why should I like it? What is the selling point?

You don't get freedom and instead have to do exactly what other people do. Not great.

I'd prefer to live in my own Fashy ethno-state ruled over by a King and made up of people very much like myself. I get everythign I want, then, and the trains run on time, and there's no reason for me to be told to not be myself but that I am also free while the public schools will try to brainwash any kids that I may have into their perspective. Zero benefits for me.

You could file this under 'reasons to stay away from the West.'

Employees are not property, and as such have rights.

Correct. Anybody can quit at any time and nobody can be legally held against their will. Employees also have every right to negotiate their own contracts.

Those are great rights.

I am quite sure that the Founding Fathers had no idea how the world would change in 200+ years. I am sure they didn't envision slavery ending, space travel, high literacy rates, and computers.

The Founding Fathers, while quite progressive... for 1776. I am sure they did envision immigration, since USA was created by immigrants FOR immigrants. Remember that Statue of Liberty? Tons of conservatives , like you, forget it pretty quickly, when the immigration issue arises.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, literally in the first congress, clearly stated that the nation was meant to be made up of free white men in good standing, full stop.

WTF do transgender people marrying, have to do with anything? Your feelings I suspect. You find it disgusting, so you bring it up. Argument based on feelings, again.

Also, your "feelings" are what makes you think that "the finger" is obscene, so don't talk to me about your feelings not being involved. I don't find the finger obscene. Offensive? Maybe. It's very subjective and a symbol of disdain is not the same as being "obscene".

Disdain : the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.

Obscene: (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency..

Oh, this is about ME, and my terrible views, right?

No, it's about stating exactly what the Left believes in, and how it is utterly absurd to imagine someone in 1776 thinking about this as some noble endpoint for our country. It shows just how far off the rails that they have come because normal, healthy people squirm when the topic comes up.

yet, this is what is promoted on mainstream TV and what is being taught to kids all over the US.

So, I think talking about the Constitution is incredibly funny.

The Left can't do it because their viewpoints sound liek a total joke in juxtaposition with the Founders.

The Right can't do it because they're irrelevant.

And the Libertarians are doubly irrelevant.

It's really a big farce.

[Godstud]

So my personal beliefs are fine... But I should not be allowed to live by these personal beliefs if it affects someone else? This is pretty overbearing and not my idea of "liberty."

You cannot inflict those beliefs on others, and that means refusing service to people because they don't belong to your fucking religion, or stupid ideology.

You don't get freedom and instead have to do exactly what other people do. Not great.

Not true. You simply don't like that people do not have the freedom to discriminate against others because they don't believe the things that you do.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, literally in the first congress, clearly stated that the nation was meant to be made up of free white men in good standing, full stop.

Yes, a racist regressive idea based on ignorance, that has since changed.

Oh, this is about ME, and my terrible views, right?

No. You are simply stating how you FEEL about it, however. You feel like it's obscene... Your feelings are irrelevant.

If you want to discuss how your views on race and discrimination match those of people living in the 1700's, then you won't mind if I laugh at your for being so primitive, uneducated, and regressive.

No, it's about stating exactly what the Left believes in, and how it is utterly absurd to imagine someone in 1776 thinking about this as some noble endpoint for our country. It shows just how far off the rails that they have come because normal, healthy people squirm when the topic comes up.

You seem to have some imaginary idea that people are as uneducated, ignorant, and racist, as they were 240 years ago. Your feeling that you are normal and healthy, is funny. Your statements clearly put you in the "libertarian" school, which you find doubly irrelevant.

[Zamuel]

So my personal beliefs are fine... But I should not be allowed to live by these personal beliefs if it affects someone else? This is pretty overbearing and not my idea of "liberty."

So... You should have rights, but they should not? Sounds sort of aristocratic, ? doesn't it ? That of course is one of the governing principles this country was founded to replace. You're not a right-winger, you're a Tory. Or are you delusional and imagine yourself king?

I'd prefer to live in my own Fashy ethno-state ruled over by a King and made up of people very much like myself. I get everythign I want

And the frustration generated by this delusional psychosis is everyone else's problem. Would you like to book your stay in the rubber room in advance?

Zam

[One Degree]

@Godstud said...
Yes, a very regressive Libertarian view, and also bad for society as a whole, if everyone started to decide who, and who could not, enter their business.

Personal beliefs are fine, until they affect the lives of others. That's where your "freedoms" end in a progressive and modern society.

No, your ‘freedoms’ end at the boundary of your autonomy. The argument is actually about where that boundary should be on different social issues. You are arguing they are universal which is a rejection of democracy. Democracy requires some people’s rights give way to other people’s rights. The “equal rights” movement simply believes we can choose some things that are removed from Democracy world wide or at least nationally. It is an insistence you be allowed to remove certain choices from local or state choice.
So, both views are correct. The insistence everyone must have the same view is the basis for disagreement. It is saying some things are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ despite what the people want. This is religion and should be recognized as such.

[Verv]

So... You should have rights, but they should not? Sounds sort of aristocratic, ? doesn't it ? That of course is one of the governing principles this country was founded to replace. You're not a right-winger, you're a Tory. Or are you delusional and imagine yourself king?

So people have a right to make me do things, then?

Of course they have rights. They can do wahtever they want. They can open up a gay bar or a bakery that only serves Muslims or whatever they want to dream of. That is a right.

These sorts of "negative rights," like "freedom from discrimination," cannot be properly defined.

I am not even a Libertarian but I generally subscribe to the view of Hayek that the only thing that would actually constitute liberty is the freedom to act.

The second that your freedom to act is taken away, it is a violation of one's liberty. You do not have the "freedom" to make anyone else act.

And the frustration generated by this delusional psychosis is everyone else's problem. Would you like to book your stay in the rubber room in advance?

Zam

That wasn't witty to me, and I do not think that it was an appropriate comment.

[Verv]

You cannot inflict those beliefs on others, and that means refusing service to people because they don't belong to your fucking religion, or stupid ideology.

Hey guy, why are you getting angry about this? Why are you dropping such obscene langauge?

Not true. You simply don't like that people do not have the freedom to discriminate against others because they don't believe the things that you do.

I worry that the definition of discrimination will expand so much so that eventually we'd be doing absurd things like making a devout Catholic lady cater a gay wedding...

Yes, a racist regressive idea based on ignorance, that has since changed.

I'd be slightly careful about this concept of it being based on ignorance.

Science isn't exactly on the everyone is naturally born as total equals line. Indeed, I cannot think of a more unscientific claim than the presupposition that all peoples are born equal.

No. You are simply stating how you FEEL about it, however. You feel like it's obscene... Your feelings are irrelevant.

... Somebody who believes we shouldn't be allowed to refuse to cater a gay person's wedding because it'd make gay people sad is talking about how my feelings are getting in the way of things.

If you want to discuss how your views on race and discrimination match those of people living in the 1700's, then you won't mind if I laugh at your for being so primitive, uneducated, and regressive.

You seem to have some imaginary idea that people are as uneducated, ignorant, and racist, as they were 240 years ago. Your feeling that you are normal and healthy, is funny. Your statements clearly put you in the "libertarian" school, which you find doubly irrelevant.

I'm not a Libertarian.

Feel free to laugh at me for being primitive or some such. I really don't care what your opinion is because it comes off as the most basic, shallow, mainstream liberal stance you could ask for.

I'm hardly impressed. You haven't said a single thing that I haven't heard for the last 20 years.

I do not really even get why you bother to post your opinion on the internet -- why not just sit in front of CNN and cheer the pundits on?

[Godstud]

"Fucking", in that instance, was an adjective. I was emphasizing something. If you feel it's obscene, then too bad. I was not "angry".

I worry that the definition of discrimination will expand so much so that eventually we'd be doing absurd things like making a devout Catholic lady cater a gay wedding...

Why shouldn't she? She's not the one getting married. She's merely providing catering, and they aren't asking for lower rates because they are homosexual. Your reasoning is preposterous.

Indeed, I cannot think of a more unscientific claim than the presupposition that all peoples are born equal.

Equal under the law, and society, not equal in the biological sense. I wasn't suggesting such a ridiculous notion.

Somebody who believes we shouldn't be allowed to refuse to cater a gay person's wedding because it'd make gay people sad is talking about how my feelings are getting in the way of things.

There is rational reason to deny service to a person having a wedding. The caterer isn't getting married. If there is no reasonable argument(an religious belief is never reasonable), then why do we have to cater to it?

I'm not a Libertarian.

Are you sure?

I do not really even get why you bother to post your opinion on the internet -- why not just sit in front of CNN and cheer the pundits on?

So personal attacks are your go-to argument, hmmm? Pretty pathetic, Verv. Your rational outlook has certainly faded over time. You're as reactive as the libertarians you claim not to be.

[Verv]

People generally think of attending a wedding, in any capacity, involves the celebration of that event, and the act of preparing things for it has meaning. Baking a cake or making flower arrangements for something explicitly against your religion should not be asked of anyone.

Just as such, I would not expect the Jewish owner of a hotel to be excited to host a white supremist organization, and I'd never suggest such a legal obligation exists, and he should just ignore these facts because he's not actually in attendance and thus technically not supporting it, while he is... providing material assistance and participating via hosting.

But that is not even the point.

The most important point of all is that nobody should be forced to do something against their will with their business.

This isn't even libertarianism. This isn't a radical position.

People have rights over their own property and their own businesses.