A Public Accomodations/ Civil Rights Analogy
I wanted to let the thread on the Indiana Religious Freedom law die. I've got a time limit on how much I care to argue- usually after 24 hours I'm done. But, I got to thinking and came up with an analogy of sorts:
Let's say you owned a local restaurant in town that happened to have a banquet room. Let's also say a group that believed in white supremacy or separatism wanted to hold their annual convention there- Ku Klux Klan, or whatever. Would you accept their reservations and allow them to hold their convention in your establishment?
Let's say a black supremacy or separatist group (Yes, there are blacks who believe in separatism as well as supremacists) decided to hold their annual convention there. Would you accommodate them?
If so, why? If not, why not?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 10:44 AM
40 comments
40 Comments:
Gay people aren't organized groups! They are just ordinary people. Comparing them to hate groups is a bad bad analogy.
WTF is your problem? Are you just a hater or do you have something hiding in your closet that makes you want to discriminate against gays? Come to think about it, I've never seen your blog include anything about hot chicks or anything like that.
We should discriminate against Fred as he is obviously a closet homosexual. Poor guy is too weak to step out of the closet.
What if businesses were required to post which demographics they wouldn't serve so we would have the ability to vote with our dollars after making an informed decision?.....
What do we do with closet gays like Fred? They lie about their demographic information. Do we discriminate against closet gays or just open gays?
This is a SLIPPERY SLOPE if I've ever seen one!
LoL. I work at a food establishment in Eureka. Thanks for posting your pic here, Fred. If I see your face their, I will refuse you service since you seem so queer.
Fred Mangels is gay. Don't bake him a cake, ever!!!!
This does not help your argument, buy the way.
Various Anonymouses:
Oh come on folks; name calling is not the way to go either. It dilutes the message and makes you look even tackier than Fred.
Let me recap: You choose to be a KKK member or a Radical Black Supremacist. You do not choose to be Gay, Black or Irish (it's a historical reference, I can't help myself).
Fred, the analogy you use just doesn't work.
As to not letting in Muslims or Catholics into your business; that is covered by the fact that hopefully we exercise religious freedom here.
But if you want to equate the Catholics with the KKK... be my guest. Just let me get out of the way first.
I get the point of the anonymous posters comments. Fred wants to discriminate against gays, he should get a taste of his own medicine.
Taste of his own medicine. He deserves it
"Let me recap: You choose to be a KKK member or a Radical Black Supremacist. You do not choose to be Gay, Black or Irish (it's a historical reference, I can't help myself)."
Doesn't matter whether you choose to, or not, as far as I'm concerned. The point is many, if not most, people would find accommodating a separatist or supremacy group unpleasant, if not revolting. They might find it just as revolting as someone being asked to participate in a seme sex wedding. I believe both businesses (and individuals) should have their feelings respected and they should both have the choice to refuse to be involved.
"What if businesses were required to post which demographics they wouldn't serve so we would have the ability to vote with our dollars after making an informed decision?.....".
That would be fine by me, except it's a moot point. The vast majority of businesses want everyone's business. They're simply not going to do that even if they could.
"Fred. If I see your face their, I will refuse you service since you seem so queer."
Finally someone who agrees with me! Thanks. You should have the choice to do business with whomever you want, or not.
Fred:
You forget I gave you an "out" for bad behavior.
We need to learn tolerance but that does not mean we must learn to tolerate abhorrent behavior.
Having a gay couple in your restaurant is not a tragedy. Having a gay couple humping each other on the tables, on the other hand, would be cause for expulsion; just as it would be for a married heterosexual couple doing the same thing.
Again, the issue is prejudice against people because of who they are. It is perfectly acceptable to exclude people because of what they do on your premises.
As for the same sex wedding: Don't attend. Rent them the hall and go watch a movie or something.
Just because you do business with gays (or Muslims) does not mean you support them.
Fred:
Let me add just one more thing:
I get that you believe you have a Civil Right to associate (or not associate) with whomever you choose.
I believe that is a valid argument.
But one of the things a democracy does (for better or for ill) is weigh the needs of the many against the needs of the few. Is it fair? To you, obviously not.
But was "Whites Only" fair? Also obviously not. But there is a principle here that benefits us all:
No matter how small the minority group or how small the group that wants to demonize them it is still the same issue; Discrimination is still wrong.
A nation (or a State) with signs approved by its society that says "Whites Only" or "Hetero's Only" (in my opinion anyway) is not acceptable.
Except for "No Irish." There I draw the line.
"As for the same sex wedding: Don't attend. Rent them the hall and go watch a movie or something."
You don't seem to be aware of the circumstances regarding the same sex weddings in question:
A bakery was asked to make a cake for a same sex wedding. The bakery folks felt very uncomfortable with that and refused, which I feel they had every right to. Perhaps not exactly being forced to attend, but forced to participate in something they found immoral. The same sex couple could easily have found someone else to bake that cake.
A photographer asked to do photos of a seme sex wedding. He or she was uncomfortable with that, feeling same sex weddings were immoral. The couple in question sued, in effect trying to force the photographer to participate in a seme sex wedding. How anyone can think that is proper is beyond me.
About the only consideration I'd give the same sex couple in the photography instance was if he or she showed up to do the wedding and then backed out. At that point, the couple didn't have time to find an alternative and I could see them maybe being entitled to some compensation.
I'd say there could certainly be breach of contract at that point, but not if the refusal was before the "last minute".
Then again, I wouldn't always last minute cancellations inappropriate if the photographer showed up to find he'd be doing sex scenes or something else he'd find inappropriate.
But that's not what you and others seem to think about it. You and others think people should be forced to do business with anyone, so long as it's deemed for politically correct reasons. I don't.
"A nation (or a State) with signs approved by its society that says "Whites Only" or "Hetero's Only" (in my opinion anyway) is not acceptable."
We're so far from that it's hardly worth addressing, but it is interesting that the Left's idea of forcing people to deal with each other probably builds a lot more resentment than allowing discrimination and is contrary to their claimed purpose.
A Democrat in Indiana tried to include language in the bill that would have required businesses to post who they intend to discriminate against. It's Republican supporters defeated that requirement.
Seems to me the old sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" would suffice. Then again, I don't think that would have satisfied you, would it?
So this Hoosier Daddy "religious freedom" law gives the OWNER(S) of a business the right to discriminate/ choose to do, or not do, business with whomever they want based on their religious beliefs. OK
What about the employees of that business? I gather they don't have that same right but come under the religious dictates of their boss or bosses. And, of course, if the business owner is fine with serving gays and the employee(s) are not then the employee better look for another place to work.
So now, on any job application in Indiana it would obviously be perfectly OK for the owner to have applicants answer questions about their religious beliefs as a condition of employment.
Yup, Fred. No problems there.
Instead of Rolling back prices, as Walmart likes to advertize, businesses can now roll back religious freedoms of others and make employees walk their religious line. Can mandatory church attendance, in the private workplace, be far behind?
The beer drinking anonymous
Forced to do business. Look, the political actuaries are having a field day with this one and I agree with MOLA. No matter the size of the group it is still discrimination. But somebody realized they could turn back the clock on all civil rights by employing the "they make me feel uncomfortable" argument against a group that is not a statistical majority in any jurisdiction I'm aware of (maybe some neighborhoods.) If it sticks here it will be used, and has been used, against groups based on color or heritage, factors about which there are few questions - people are born with them is accepted with less question. So the civil rights argument based on common humanity could reach beyond ideas of choice. Now, the pushback is "but I'm uncomfortable," and I have no doubt it's a similar "discomfort" to racism or sexism. "But I'm uncomfortable" is a weak, weak argument. Civil rights is so much larger than discomfort - opponents have mocked tolerance as weakness, politically "correct," not independent, emotionally dishonest... and now rally behind "but I'm uncomfortable." You're getting used, Fred.
Question for Fred - Do you support a business similar to the Woolworth food counters refusing service to a huge group of people such as African Americans or the LGB community? We're not talking about a conference room full of people, but a measurable percentage of the general population/community.
Where do you stand?
"Do you support a business similar to the Woolworth food counters refusing service to a huge group of people such as African Americans or the LGB community?".
As I already wrote, we're so far from that it's not even worth addressing. Look at what's happening here:
two or three businesses felt the LGBT thing was too much in their face to feel comfortable with, so they refused to go further. Yet this made national news and created this discussion. Unbelievable.
"What about the employees of that business?"
We've already had one employee of a business comment here and claim he wouldn't serve me if he recognized me. That might be considered his right, but his boss might feel differently. Most business owners- the vast, vast majority, actually, want everyone's business.
You guys are trying too hard in a desperate attempt to make a point.
"two or three businesses felt the LGBT thing was too much in their face to feel comfortable with, so they refused to go further."
You, Fred, like these businesses you mentioned have forgotten that the Indiana law was about "religious freedom". Where oh where is religion in any of this? The point that many are making here is that in actuality this law doesn't have an efing thing to do with religion - your own argument is about your right to be a bigoted jerk if you want to be. So the Indiana law is BS. Just like all the rest of the right wing crap; always cloaked in something to do with "freedom, religion or patriotism" and having nothing to do with any of it.
Okay, one more time:
Do you support a business similar to the Woolworth food counters refusing service to a huge group of people such as the LGB community? We're not talking about a conference room full of people, but a measurable percentage of the general population/community.
Fred:
What you have seemed to miss is this is a form of Institutionally Permitted Discrimination. That's what annoys all of us pointy headed liberals.
This is a case of the State of Indiana saying, IN LAW, that it is okay to treat a segment of it's population as less than human.
You think it is a small deal. That there is somehow no comparison between the treatment of the LGBT community and minorities such as blacks or Hispanics.
What you don't see is if this bit of reasoning stands legal muster, it will open the door for widespread public discrimination of all types of people for purely prejudiced reasoning.
With this bit of Institutionally Permitted Discrimination, it would be possible to legally say, "I won't serve (black people, Hispanics, Muslims, Young Christian Republicans, etc.) because they disturb me." Or they can legally say, "I serve THOSE PEOPLE around back where their presence does not make my other customers uncomfortable."
Can you see why us pointy headed liberals find it disturbing? It means what progress we have made in Civil Rights in the last 70 years could very well be reversed.
You probably think that this is simply hysterical hyperbole. But then again, refusing to serve a person in one's business because of who they are is also hysterical hyperbole.
Fred, seriously, you don't think whole regions of this nation will grab hold of this with an enthusiastic hoop an' holler and maybe a bit of the Rebel Yell?
I would prefer, as the great social philosopher Barney Fife used to say, "You gotta nip it in the bud, Andy! You gotta nip it in the bud!"
The Left HATES bullies. The LEFT are the biggest bullies around.....they will call you horrible names and belittle you and your beliefs (religious or other wise) until you agree with them....or just shut up and acquiesce.Wonder why so many people in this country are so angry? We are no longer allowed freedom of thought or the freedom to run our own business based on our own beliefs.Don't like my business rules..DON'T patronize my business.I can deal with that...but the lefists can't.They MUST control everything.The fact that so many people agree with all this PC crap is just down right scary. This country is headed toward a very bad future.Learn from the past.
"Fred, seriously, you don't think whole regions of this nation will grab hold of this with an enthusiastic hoop an' holler and maybe a bit of the Rebel Yell?"
Highly unlikely. Support for same sex marriage has been steadily gaining across the country for some time now. I believe most recent polls show support at over 50%. And your fear of us becoming an apartheid nation if one or two people refuse to participate in LGBT activities is simply left wing paranoia as far as I'm concerned.
"Do you support a business similar to the Woolworth food counters refusing service to a huge group of people such as the LGB community?"
If you can show me an existing business such as that, I might be able to answer that. I don't believe I've ever seen such a thing in my lifetime.
The left does hate bullies 2033. Here is the definition...
Bully: a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker"
You just called the entire left bullies. Fine. Moving on.
Here is another word, a word the left will use in this debate.
Bigot: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
Both bigot and bully are horrible names. Before reading the definitions they both registered a strong reaction as I read them. I'm sure they had the same reaction in you.
Right here - ".they will call you horrible names" by calling the entire left "bullies" didn't you just do what you complained about at the very start??!!
How do we begin a discussion with an anon about what boils down to ethics when you decry an practice the sentence after practicing it yourself?
I could go on and on about bully, bigots, the 14th amendment, elections, freedom, religion, Mike Pence, and finally a business' "freedom" to be bigoted, but we should first start with that paradox if any of the following debate would have any meaning other than words on a screen.
Thanks to MOLA for your perspective - and I agree with you about those darn Irish! Thanks to Fred for taking up this topic. I wish the rest of you (or that one other guy) would have the courage of your convictions to post with a name so we could have some accountability (ie see how your views change over time). Your opinions are important, they help to shape our community. Be proud of them and come out of the anon closet.
Jon Yalcinkaya
Fred, you do realize that serving a person is not "participating in their activities" right?
"I don't believe I've ever seen such a thing in my lifetime."
So if it's not happening now, the fact it happened in the past means we are above and/or beyond it? Didn't 8:33pm mention this, "learn from our past".
"Fred, you do realize that serving a person is not "participating in their activities" right?"
It certainly is, if you're telling a photographer he has to photograph- and thus attend- a same sex wedding.
"So if it's not happening now, the fact it happened in the past means we are above and/or beyond it?"
Yep, learn from your past, but you don't have to dwell on it. We are so far from apartheid now it's hardly worth mentioning. Yet some think there's a big, dark conspiracy that wants to take us back to a hundred years ago.
If that was that case, as I pointed out earlier, you'd see at least some businesses switching over to private clubs so they wouldn't have to serve certain people. I'm sure there must be some around, but I can't think of one.
If there was resounding sentiment for that sort of thing, you should be able to point me to any number of stores that only serve membership that is white, straight or whatever. It's just not happening, and likely never will.
Trying to force people to do things they're uncomfortable with only increases the resentment amongst people that you're trying to prevent.
Only about an hour and a half before I reach the 24 hour limit of my patience with arguing a topic. Made the original post at 10:44 yesterday and it's 9:13 now. Time's running out!
It seems that Fred not only supports a persons religious rights, but also their rights to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc.
And I support your right to discriminate, as well. 10:17 so it's been 24 hours. That means you got the last word. Congrats!
Fred:
I'm regretting telling you about the South's answer to the end of Segregation: Private Clubs.
You took a symbol of the South's intransigent hatred against its own Black population and used it as a solution for people getting all hot and bothered over LGBT's.
Sorry you won't respond. Just keep in mind where your own logic is taking you.
I feel perfectly content with my position. I don't know how you can justify yours.
I feel people should be allowed to participate in voluntary relationships, or not. You don't. There's no way to reconcile our differences here as I see it.
Well, MOLA, now that Fred is gone we can speak amongst ourselves.
Thank you first of all for your point of view here and bringing up the rebel yell. You've really nailed it.
What is so ironic when you get into these discussions with the right is how contradictory their rationalizations quickly become.
"I feel people should be allowed to participate in voluntary relationships." Yep. Exactly. For example the freedom to marry whom one loves and the freedom to be able to buy your bread or find a photographer at any store.
Part of the game is to change the meaning of words and freedom and voluntary are top among them. Also the left is the one who are the bullies, not the right. Atheists and agnostics are persecuting meek and vulnerable Christians (in America), etc. etc. etc.
If I haven't ever recommended this site check it out. This is my favorite click on the intertubes bar none and I look forward to find out what they've found each day after work.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/
Also, don't forget the leftist's bully meeting next Thursday. This month's topic is "Lunch money or lunch - how to help your victim decide".
Fred:
Well, as I said yesterday I did understand your viewpoint. And since you didn't raise any objections to my recap of it I assume I know your position.
Just because one understands a viewpoint does not mean you agree with that viewpoint. It would not hurt you to try to understand mine.
I did not expect to make you a convert... I know you already have your position set... As I do mine. So why did I bother? I believe in the Convergence of Ideas: Where Ideas are placed in the hot furnace of debate and the irrelevancies are eventually burned off.
I thank you for the opportunity to hold this debate.
LMOB:
That's all very good... But what do we do about the Irish?
Send them back where they came from, that's what I say.
Have a good rest of the weekend.
Post a Comment
<< Home