See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Yes, just what we need. A law giving people who want to discriminate against others protection. That's just what they need, to be able to discriminate freely and without fear. Funny how religion is used as a reason for so much hate, like that's going to make it acceptable because your interpretation of the bible says so.
Whatever happened to the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution?
It still exists but applies to the government.
Right, and therefore the government cannot make laws that violate this principle. And a law stating that an entity has the right to discriminate and has the protection from the government when they do.
To discriminate or not to discriminate is a moral issue. Don't want the government deciding how to live your life, who you can love or marry? Of if you can have an abortion? Great then realize that government shouldn't be forcing people to do business with those they choose not to do business with.
It is a moral decision and if you want to have government legislate morality then you have to accept it in all forms and not selectively when you agree with it.
So this would be like making it explicitly legal to discriminate against mixed race couples before Loving v Virginia? I wonder how history would have viewed that particular move...
So you support the government imposing it morals upon you through legislation?
I don't support or condone the discrimination but it isn't the role of the government to legislate morality.
No matter how you slice it, law DOES legislate morality. That's one of its primary purposes.
You can't murder.
You can't steal.
You can't marry your sister.
Moral decisions, each and every one.
Not exactly. When you murder you take away someone's life. When you steal you take property to which you are not entitled. These are acts that take away the rights of another.
A person has no right to do business with you. It is your business and your property or service and you have no obligation other than moral to do business with them.
So there is a difference. And just because the government has done it in the past doesn't make it right
So you're saying you support the right of businesses not to sell to black people or to tell them that they can't sit at the counter to eat?
The Congressional Black Congress does not allow white members. When a white congressman tried to join a few years ago he was denied membership because he is white. Congressman Clay from MO stated unless he could change his skin color he was not welcome. So it seems Congress condones racism amongst themselves.
So are you saying that discrimination against black people is ok?
Of course not, but why does Congress condone discrimination by the Congressional Black Caucus against white members solely based on skin color? The congressman Cohen, who happened to be white was elected by a district that was primarily African-American. He stated he thought by joining the CBC he would be better able to represent his district. So he applied. He was turned down. Several leaders of the CBC explained why but the most direct was Congressman Clay from MO who said the CBC had always been a black group and unless Congressman Cohen could change his skin color he was not welcome. That is nothing but blatant racial discrimination. Discrimination of any group against another solely on skin color is wrong yet our Congress condones this within itself.
Take it up with congress if you object to the CBC. Their email addresses and phone numbers are public info.
Because you don't understand the historical context of the situation.
So historical situation makes current day discrimination OK. That's interesting.
It's also not new or surprising. Context matters, and always has. You clearly fail to comprehend the purpose of the CBC or the reasons surrounding its existence.
Am I incorrect in assuming you don't see a difference between the phrases "White Power" and "Black Power"?
Apparently you see a difference in discrimination versus discrimination. Nice hair splitting. So you are of the opinion that white against black discrimination is bad but black against white discrimination is OK. That is mighty liberal of you.
No, your assumption of this is once again showing your inability to understand context.
Yes. It is their right as it is their business and their property. No different then me supporting the right of The Phelps to spew their file message. I don't have to agree with the action to support the right.
I wouldn't do business with someone who discriminates on race or sexual orientation but I must speak out for their rights if I expect my rights to be protected.
The government should force individuals to associate with others. Moral choices are best left to the individual, not the government.
And there you have it. An actual honest answer. Thank you for providing it instead of trying to tap dance like John.
The followup question is whether or not you think we should then pass a law explicitly making it ok to discriminate against black people - or in this case, we'll just go with mixed race couples, since we're talking weddings - if you have a "religious objection?"
No. No law should be passed to make it okay to discriminate.
However, it should not be illegal to choose who you want to do business with.
And James, all my answers are honest and I always answer questions directly.
How about you? Do you support Obama selecting people to represent the US based on their sexual orientation?
It's not illegal to choose who you want to do business with, so long as you are not violating someone's civil rights when you do so. So why pass this law to make it explicitly ok to discriminate? Isn't it essentially the same thing as passing a law making it ok to discriminate against mixed race couples in Va? Bob Jones U didn't allow mixed race dating for years in spite of Loving V Virginia.
My answer about Obama is irrelevant. The situation is not parallel. These are not the "selective indignation droids" you've been looking for. Move along now.
You understand considering murder wrong is a moral issue and you're claiming that the government has no places to make laws against murder.
Read my previous posts. You're late to the party.
I'm not, you failed to address it. You're comments:
"When you murder you take away someone's life. When you steal you take property to which you are not entitled. These are acts that take away the rights of another."
Both of which we legislate against for moral reasons. We do not consider taking someone's life away wrong in all situations. So, as I pointed out, if the government has no place making legislation on moral issues, do you believe it is not the government's place to make laws against murder?
Interesting! The Story for these comments does not appear to be available any Longer. "Page Not Found" is all that shows up when you click on the title of the story. Oh Well. Must have hit a nerve.
Cool! It is back with an Update! My Bad.
"Court costs to fight challenges to the Bill are estimated between $50,000 and $275,000." Great! Just another "Jobs Bill" for Lawyers. More Taxpayer money to defend Ideology. What about the Jobs, Governor Brownback? What About the Economy of the State of Kansas, Governor Brownback? The Election IS Coming.
At some level everyone has preferences on who they do business with, to deny them their preference is stripping them of their liberty. Some liberty should be stripped so that our society does not become too stratified (e.g EO), but there has to be a limit on how much freedom we demand from people. Unlike law involving racial prejudice, gay prejudice is not based on color, but on behavior. Some people see it as unacceptable behavior, and it is immoral to force them to act as if it was acceptable.
So it's ok to discriminate against interracial couples? That's based on behavior, and there are people who have a religious objection to it. Is it immoral to make them behave as if they find it acceptable?
To those that believe there should be no discrimination I ask, should a black baker be forced to cater a KKK rally? Or should a Jewish baker be forced to bake cakes for a neo-nazi event celebrating Hiltler's birthday?
The government must serve blindly, individuals do not. Individuals can discriminate. Some we will say is good discrimination as in the above examples and others we will say is bad, but it is all discrimination. Good or bad depends on where you're standing. It is subjective.
Probably a moot point. I can't feature the Klan or the Nazis even asking that to happen. Gays, on the other hand do, and will, request lodging, food, and all the other things that everybody else, including you, asks for.
Splitting hairs is what you are good at, Brock, but the bottom line is that this bill fosters blatant discrimination and should not even be considered in this day and age. Discrimintation is bad, it is unlawful, and it is morally indefensible. I don't care if you argue til doomsday, discrimination is bad.
By the way, what businessperson in its right mind would support a bill that would lower its customeer base? Can you think of a phrase that contains "nose" and "face"?
Greg, answer the question. Would you force a Jewish baker to cater a neo-nazi event or face penalties for refusing? Let's see if your principles are solid or if they are dependent on the group you like or dislike.
Some discrimination is wrong and some isn't. Point is just because something is wrong doesn't make it illegal. We all discriminate. To say you don't is a lie.
I'd appreciate you not calling me and others you do not know liars.
As to your question, if a Jewish baker is approached by a Nazi skinhead and asked to cater the Nazi to-do, there is no reason I can see that whould stop it by legislative acxtion. Mght all be better off if we looked at the health and well-being of our businesses rather than the ideological bent or political persuasion or color of the skin of business patrons. Perhaps we all can learn something, like, for instance, Jews selling to Nazis, does not make either of them any better than the other or worse than some.
The Congressional Black Caucus does not allow white members. Cohen, a white congressman from a district that is primarily African-American applied for membership and was denied because he is white. Congressman Clay from MO stated unless he could change his skin color he was not welcome. So Congress that allows a racist organization to exist within its membership believes a private business should have no say in who that business takes as a customer.
Point blank: do you think a business should be allowed to not serve someone on the basis of their race alone?
Of course not, but why does Congress condone their own members to discriminate against each other based solely on skin color? Discrimination is wrong by any race against another.
A red herring argument. Take it up with congress if you don't like the CBC. It would be towards the bottom of my priorities list, but ymmv.
So you are OK with Congress having a group that discriminates against people because of skin color. Discrimination is discrimination.
I think they made a mistake by not being more open with their caucus, but then, I think Congress has far worse sins to address. So what? I'm not going to debate you about the CBC.
So you get all worked up about a business possibly discriminating against someone but you really don't care about Congress allowing discrimination to go on against themselves. If Congress can't avoid discrimination in their own arena how do you expect them to eliminate discrimination across the country?
That herring didn't get less red.
That's an immature ad hominem, John.
It may be an ad hominem but it still is the truth.
I take it that you concede the argument, John, since all you're doing at this point is making a personal attack.
Personal attacks again, John.
So you misquoting me by suggesting I am in favor of discrimination based on skin color is not an inflammatory personal attack. I NEVER advocated discrimination against any person or persons based on skin color. Your comments directed at me have been nothing but vile misquotes of my statements. Grow up. Attributing misquotes to someone does not prove your point. It only makes you look ridiculous.
I never said that you encouraged discrimination, just that your statements implied that you would not legally forbid it. Not legally forbidding it = allowing it. If you allow it, it's permissible or ok.
That's not the same as endorsing bigotry. It's merely allowing it. Here's an example, I don't endorse Fred Phelps, but I would certainly allow him to protest on Mass street. Protesting on mass street is OK, even if the protester is someone with whom I strongly disagree.
I've never misquoted you, even if you feel I've misunderstood or misinterpreted you. I've never once put quote marks around something you didn't say, and I've challenged you to clarify where you think you're being misinterpreted. I think you're just too emotionally charged to have a civil conversation right now.
From my statements you are inferring about black and mixed race discrimination, then attempting to put words in my mouth. I have not made nor have I implied any approval or acceptance of discrimination of any kind against black or mixed race peoples. I followed Brock's very specific hypotheticals of do we want as a society our government to force Jewish businesses to take antisemitic customers or black businesses to take KKK customers. It was you that in some bizarre way inferred that I was OK with or accepting of black and mixed race discrimination. When I complained you denied your behavior and continued. When I complained again you say I am too emotional to have a discussion. Any excessive emotion I might have shown is directly due to your misguided inferences that you are trying to attach to me. Your inferences are exactly that, they are YOURS, not mine. I did not imply anything such as you claim. You inferred it. Any inference is clouded by that person's experiences and biases. You can make any bizarre inference you want but that is yours to own. I did not imply anything close to what you inferred.
Just to make it as easy for you to understand as possible, what I said was I am not in favor of the government forcing a business owner from a persecuted group (Jews or blacks for example) to provide services to the group that did the persecuting (nazis or KKK). You managed to bizarrely infer that I am OK with discrimination against blacks or mixed race peoples. Clearly my statements did not imply what you inferred. Your inference is so far off base that it can only be labeled as bizarre.
Oh, I do hate to see a man who can't keep his promises. You were "done" with me. I guess I misinterpreted that, too.
I marked up exactly what you said and exactly what I inferred from it. But let's go into why I'd go that far with it. You questioned the right of congress to pass anti discrimination laws when they allowed (or "condoned" as you termed it) this "discrimination" on the part of the CBC, and you asked someone else why historical context would at all matter in judging whether or not discrimination had occurred. It sounds more like Brock's stance on the issue - a libertarian notion that property rights trump civil liberty law.
If you're in favor of anti discrimination laws, state it. All I see you claiming is "I didn't say that," but then weaseling out of making a strong counter claim saying you do support anti discrimination legislation. Instead you just claim you neither condone racial discrimination nor the government forcing an historically oppressed group from serving a hate group.
Calling my inferences bizarre is just dodging the issue. So correct me if I'm wrong with a clear stance on what you do believe instead of spending your energy attacking me.
Very funny. You are the one that started all this by attacking me and continuing to do so.
Was this directed at me? I double checked, and you were first to respond to me - with hostility - in one of my very first posts, not that it would justify attacking you. I don't think I've actually "attacked" you here at all, although I am quite hard on your arguments.
Point blank - do you think it was okay for Obama to have selected our Olympic delegation based on being gay? Didn't he discriminate against people of a different sexual orientation?
You can't be against some discrimination - you must be against all discrimination.
Of course to pick people solely because they are homosexual is not appropriate any more than it would be to exclude them solely for being homosexual. Obama was simply acting like a petulant child when he made his choices.
Another red herring argument.
Too funny. James has no counter so he declares it a red herring.
Actually, pointing out that it is a red herring argument is the counter. You make a statement that has no bearing on the discussion, claim it is somehow an argument for your statement, though it provides no evidence or support and he explains how it can be dismissed.
Perhaps if you could stay on topic people wouldn't dismiss your statements.
You are incorrect. The topic is discrimination. The posts are about possible forms of discrimination that may not be so easy to come up with a yes or no answer. That is not a red herring.
Red herring argument:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
Topic A: Explicitly legalizing discrimination against a married couple for religious reasons is wrong.
Topic B: Congress has no right to pass civil rights laws because the CBC didn't vote to allow a white guy to sit in their meetings. Did you hear? The CBC didn't allow this guy into their meetings! Do you agree with this? Please argue with me about whether or not what the CBC did was ok and stop discussing whether or not KS should enact legislation explicitly making discrimination legal.
In this case both topic A and topic B are about discrimination. Therefore your red herring does not apply.
So discrimination in topic B is in no way related to discrimination in topic A. Wow. Both are examples of discrimination. Sorry you are not open minded enough to see that.
Not a matter of open mindedness. I'd be willing to consider a relevant argument. You have not provided one. The topic of discussion is Kansas' desire to legalize discrimination against gay married couples, not "discrimination in any form, real or perceived."
Since you were the one to initiate the concern about black and mixed race discrimination, you are responsible for that red herring.
Nope. I provided a very apt parallel using a historical example. It wasn't a red herring at all. A couple that is legally married in another state lives in a state in which their form of marriage is illegal. Some people even have religious objections to their marriage and can quote scripture that they claim justifies their position.
It looks like eventually the SC will overturn the laws making their marriage illegal. So is the solution to explicitly legalize discrimination against the couple, even if the law against their marriage is overturned?
This exact story happened in the late 1950s, only the couple was an interracial couple, not a gay couple. It's absolutely, completely relevant to the discussion at hand.
Actually to topic is about this bill which relates to the State of Kansas and private business, not about a selected individual case you want to focus on because you believe it might illustrate a false correlation to your point.
Also, while not getting into it; if you understood context you would understand why your repeated comments do not hold up well, even if they weren't red herrings.
Discrimination is the topic. My point is to point out the selective indignation of some posters.
While I am guilty of selective indignation, I think you make a good point that most of us are guilty of the same thing.
How does society or government address Brock's hypothetical given above. While I believe all reasonable people can agree that discrimination based solely on skin color is wrong in every way, how does society or government address a business problem like Brock puts forth. I personally don't want society or the government forcing a known Jewish business to serve an obvious antisemitic group. Nor do I want an African-American business being forced to serve the KKK group. If one takes the specifics out of the above hypotheticals given by Brock (in order to remove the emotional reaction) then one is left with a business not wanting to have a particular group as customers. Is that not discrimination? While I am OK with it in the above hypothetical how then do we say other businesses don't have the same rights? It becomes a mess with discrimination in some cases is OK but not in others. Who gets to make the choice of when is discrimination OK and when it is not?
Don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said discriminating against African-Americans is acceptable. Read my post carefully and you will see that.
I never said any such thing. Apparently your agenda is to be inflammatory by misquoting people.
John I've read your posts and you're quite right. You've never said anything remotely close to what James is accusing you of saying.
Typical tactic - can't discredit your argument so they try to discredit you by lying. Very sad and unfortunate.
James has demonstrated his lack of substance. I've made my points. Outta here.
Appreciate your comments John. Very well stated and on topic.
John's argument: While I believe all reasonable people can agree that discrimination based solely on skin color is wrong in every way, how does society or government address a business problem like Brock puts forth. ( I think people who discriminate are terrible, but I don't think we can ban it.) I personally don't want society or the government forcing a known Jewish business to serve an obvious antisemitic group. Nor do I want an African-American business being forced to serve the KKK group. (I am giving you examples I think you'll find tolerable even though they're not really examples of discrimination, since one could prove that the business had reasons to dislike the individual for reasons other than their race, creed, gender, etc. ) If one takes the specifics out of the above hypotheticals given by Brock (in order to remove the emotional reaction) then one is left with a business not wanting to have a particular group as customers. Is that not discrimination? (Broadly defined discrimination to include just about anything) While I am OK with it in the above hypothetical how then do we say other businesses don't have the same rights? It becomes a mess with discrimination in some cases is OK but not in others. Who gets to make the choice of when is discrimination OK and when it is not? (It's ok for businesses to discriminate against people by race. They're terrible people if they do this, but since I can't stop all discrimination or pin down a good definition even of what discrimination is, we should allow discrimination.)
John's argument is essentially that discrimination is bad, but we can't ban it. He broadly defines discrimination to the point that it could be just about anything, confuses it with examples that aren't really discrimination, and then says that this is "removing the emotional reaction" and that in the end, it's basically ok for any group to refuse to do business with any other group. So, in other words, it's ok for a hotel to turn away a interracial couple on the basis of race alone.
Note to the overly sensitive moderators working today - not once did I personally attack him or cali him a racist.
You have repeatedly misquoted me. For example like your latest post when you indicate my posts are in favor of allowing a hotel to turn away an interracial couple on the basis of race alone. I NEVER stated or implied it is acceptable to do any such thing. You have an agenda that appears to be based on misquoting and deliberately misinterpreting my posts. I NEVER on ANY post agreed with discriminating against any person or persons based on skin color. Your misquotes are nothing but intentional and inflammatory.
I didn't misquote you. There are no quotation marks in any of that, and your original statement is right there for comparison. I've invited you to clarify what you meant if it was inaccurate. I've even got a long post where I do quote you - exactly and in entirety. Please stop being so melodramatic. It doesn't become you.
You're essentially arguing that civil rights laws are slippery slopes that you don't feel congress is qualified to tackle. Correct?
It is quite clear you have repeatedly attributed statements to me that I never made. That is nothing but inflammatory. I am done with you.
Please don't make promises if you don't intend to keep them.
The KS turnpike authority states clearly in their job listings that they will not hire anyone who smokes or is married to anyone who smokes. How is this not discrimination? So the government allows discrimination among the members of Congress and that is OK. The state of KS practices hiring discrimination against people who smoke or are married to a smoker and that is OK. But a private business should not have the right to determine who they want as customers. Seems like the federal and state governments practice discrimination when they choose to but don't want anyone else to be able to do so.
I remember the big smoker lynchings of the 1960s. Poor discriminated against smokers. Too bad there's nothing they could possibly do to be non-smokers.
James, how compassionate of you. Some people can quit but for others the addiction is too strong.
You sound like those that believe gays can choose not to be gay.
Are you suggesting that smokers are born that way and that not smoking would be living a lie and permanently damaging to their mental health and emotional relationships?
James loves to deflect and dance around questions.
James, I would think the answer to your question would be obvious but apparently not so let me assist you in your learning.
Smokers are not born that way but they may be predisposed to addiction. Often smoking begins at a young age but has life long consequences. Besides health issues discriminatory practices is another.
Mmm, smoked red herring.
James thanks for proving my point.
That you're grasping at straws and naming situations that aren't at all parallel? Well, I'm glad that was also your point.
Speaking of deflection. Seems you're still having a hard time staying on topic.
So James, you are OK with discrimination against overweight people since they aren't born that way.
I totally support the right of obese people to get married.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respcting the establishement or religion or regarding the parctice thereof.
This Kansas law is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. It allows religious zealots the same rights to religious bigots that the Jim Crow laws used to give to racial bigots in the past. All religion is fantasy and imagination. It sould not be used as a tool of discrimination against any group of citizens.
The country is moving rapidly to remove the stigmas and laws against gay people, and Kansas iwill be dragged kicking and screaming (from the Koch Regime Kansas Government) into the new era. Until then, backwards states like Kansas will be making numerous attempts to stop this movement. I hope that I see such flagrant violations of civil rights squashed in my lifetime.
ALEC at this point represents the state of kansas legislature. Numbers and such will be "cooked" accordingly which in essence is a fraud being perpetrated on Kansas taxpayers and voters.
The Washington D.C. delegation also receives their "agenda" and talking points by way of ALEC.
ALEC has a new partner named Aegis Strategic
The firm, named Aegis Strategic, is run by a former top executive at Charles and David Koch's flagship advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, and it was founded with the blessing of the brothers' political advisers, three Republican operatives tell Mother Jones.
The consulting firm plans to handpick local, state, and federal candidates who share the Kochs' free-market, limited-government agenda, and groom them to win elections. "We seek out electable advocates of the freedom and opportunity agenda who will be forceful at both the policy and political levels," the company notes on its website.
(((( There is nothing about ALEC that supports "limited government" in fact quite the contrary)))
Aegis says it can manage every aspect of a campaign, including advertising, direct mail, social media, and fundraising.
The consulting firm Aegis Strategic plans to handpick local, state, and federal candidates who share the Kochs' politics.
Can a business refuse to serve members of the Kansas Legislature because they institutionalize discrimination?
Replace every reference to "same-sex" or "homosexual" in the bill, with "race" and see how it sounds. If it walks like a bigot, and sounds like a bigot...
Yeah, I tried walking them through that with miscegenation as the example, since it is a direct parallel to the discussion at hand, and they want to just red herring with smokers and obese people and who Obama picked for the Olympics team and the CBC.
With the Jewish/neo-Nazi and AfAm/KKK analogies, you're totally flipping this argument around. A more correct analogy would be, "So then you would be ok with LGBT businesses discriminating against (religious group of choice here)?"
Because in the examples cited, the Jewish and AfAm people have a history of being oppressed, discriminated against, abused, and murdered by the applicable neo-Nazi/KKK people. Just as LGBT people have a history of being oppressed, discriminated against, abused, and murdered by ...well, just about any other group of people religious or not, though most of those doing the oppressing, discriminating, abusing, and murdering wind up citing some sort of religious purview.
And I will step up and say yes, I am totally ok with a group who is oppressed, discriminated against, abused, and murdered then refusing to do business with those who have oppressed, discriminated against, abused, and murdered them.
I am not ok with those doing the oppressing trying to get away with continuing the oppression by citing their religion and getting their religious views signed into law in a country where that is not supposed to happen.
Betty, you better be ready for James to say by your statement that you are implying it is OK to discriminate against blacks or mixed race peoples. That is what he did repeatedly to me despite me never saying or implying any such thing. I understand you are not implying that but that is what James will claim. He will be actually inferring (rather than you implying) but he doesn't seem to know the difference. I agree your LGBT analogy would be more direct, but I believe you see that the Jewish/antisemitic and black/KKK are similar analogies to the one you put forth.
Nope. "That isn't anything like what Betty said or implied," James says, with a hint of a grin at the ironic use of deliberate misinterpretation by John.
Well stated lady.
The Opposite of ALEC is People For The American Way = Gov't By The People YES!
Issues - http://www.pfaw.org/issues
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·