House of Eratosthenes

A Colorado baker found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple must go through sensitivity training as part of his penance and rehabilitation. In December of last year, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer found Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, guilty of discriminating against same-sex couple Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig when he told them in July 2012 that he couldn’t bake them a wedding cake because homosexual behavior conflicted with his Christian beliefs.

Phillips appealed the verdict to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which stood by Spencer’s decision and ordered May 30 that Phillips be required to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples in conflict with his moral Christian convictions. Additionally, Phillips and his staff will have to submit to a regimen of state-sanctioned sensitivity training to make sure they are in line with Colorado’s non-discrimination statute.

Liberals are supposed to be all about liberty, but they have a fondness for bureaucracies that encroach upon it, restrict it, diminish it, remove it entirely if left to their own devices.

Over the next two years Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission concerning his business practices, informing the commission whether he has turned any business away, most importantly homosexual customers. “So if his shop is closed or he’s out of flour, he needs to report to the commission,” explained Nicolle Martin of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative Christian legal advocacy group that represented Phillips in the case, to Fox News on June 5.

As far as the sensitivity schooling, Phillips will have to “prove that he has sufficiently trained his employees and staff to comply with the Colorado anti-discrimination act,” added Martin.

The plaintiff-side said something about this that I found interesting:

Attorney Amanda Goad of the ACLU’s Colorado franchise, which filed the discrimination complaint against Phillips on behalf of the same-sex couple, said that while “religious freedom is undoubtedly an important American value … so is the right to be treated equally under the law free from discrimination.”

That’s the endlessly-repeating litany of those who have sought to take our freedoms away, for quite a few years now: “While such-and-such a right is very important, freedom from discrimination is MORE important.” This is why liberals shouldn’t be allowed to make rules, at all: They simply do not comprehend making a dent in something, they have to do-away-with it. Everything is a smallpox virus. End war, end hunger, end illiteracy, end bigotry, end ignorance, end sensible skepticism against the global-warming bromides, end end end end end. Their “end-“ing methods fail to work, every time they target something that, evidently unknown to them, happens to be the default state.

People discriminate. If we have to keep losing more and more of our ability to manage our own lives as long as discrimination exists, we will never stop losing it until this ability is all-the-way gone, nevermind whether discrimination is present or absent by that time. And you know, maybe that’s the whole point.

Would a liberal support a global ban on these forced sensitivity-training regimens, in the public sector as well as private? That would be a good test-case question to put to a new recruit to the liberal movement; if liberty really is the inspiring motive, the subject shouldn’t hesitate to answer in the affirmative, since nobody who truly champions the cause of liberty would be interested in forcing strangers to think a certain way.

Do you think businesses open to the public should be able to discriminate against people because of their race or religion?
http://www.google.com/search?q=juden+verboten&tbm=isch
- Zachriel | 06/10/2014 @ 06:37
A Colorado baker found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple must go through sensitivity training

I think the appropriate response to this order is to say “Fuck you” and move on.
- Physics Geek | 06/10/2014 @ 10:07
I found this disturbing as well:

Phillips will have to “prove that he has sufficiently trained his employees and staff to comply with the Colorado anti-discrimination act,”

How do you prove this? Do you mandate that your employees perform homosexual acts, or can you merely get them to read gay porn? Seriously, how in hell do you prove such a thing?
- Physics Geek | 06/10/2014 @ 10:09
Oh, please, Zachriel. You and yours signed off on whole countries going “jew-free”. And, of course, you and yours do nothing about the endless “boycott Israel” movements. But let me ask you something. Do you really thing a Jew should be forced at gunpoint to serve NAZI’s?……….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/10/2014 @ 13:24
Robert Mitchell Jr: You and yours signed off on whole countries going “jew-free”.

Please don’t ascribe views to us that we do not hold.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Do you really thing a Jew should be forced at gunpoint to serve NAZI’s?

No. And there’s no law that says they must.

Do you think businesses open to the public should be able to discriminate against people because of their race or religion?
- Zachriel | 06/10/2014 @ 13:25
Well, to get scrupulously technical about it, guns aren’t involved. Yet.
- Rich Fader | 06/10/2014 @ 13:53
“Do you think businesses open to the public should be allowed…

Let’s ponder that after y’all rephrase it as active-voice: Subject, verb (allow), object (businesses). Who would be doing this allowing?
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 14:34
Rich Fader: Well, to get scrupulously technical about it, guns aren’t involved. Yet.

The threat of force is inherent in the enforcement of law.

mkfreeberg: Let’s ponder that after y’all rephrase it as active-voice: Subject, verb (allow), object (businesses). Who would be doing this allowing?

We’re obviously referring to law. Do you think there should be laws against discrimination in public accommodations?
- Zachriel | 06/10/2014 @ 15:20
We’re obviously referring to law. Do you think there should be laws against discrimination in public accommodations?

Laws don’t “allow”; at least, this one wouldn’t. The law under discussion does the opposite.

Might I suggest the subject missing from y’all’s passive-voice question is: “the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.” So if we translate it into active voice, the question would be: “Do you think the Colorado Civil Rights Commission should allow businesses, open to the public, to discriminate?” More to the point: “Do you think flawed mortals should allow other flawed mortals to do what flawed mortals sometimes do?”

It’s funny how more-more-more laws, look like a good idea when expressed in passive voice, but when expressed in active voice, they look like the micro-managing neurosis symptoms they truly are. To respond to the question: YES, they should be allowed to. NO, it’s probably a bad idea, since homosexual dollars are worth just as much as any other. But — not to start a big ol’ debate about Jesus and the adultress, since I was actually watching that exchange, but that’s what the story about throwing the first stone is all about.

It’s not a good idea to build a house over a fault line. It’s not a good idea to buy your kids video game consoles for Christmas when you want their grades to get better. It’s not a good idea to vote for Obama when you’re poor. People SHOULD not do these things. But if freedom means anything at all, it has to include things that other people, total strangers like me, might find disagreeable. So the answer to y’all’s question is yes.

And, I don’t accept the premise. That whatever people shouldn’t be doing, we need to have some kind of meddling law stopping them from doing it. That’s just dumb and not worthy of debate.
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 19:37
I would point out, Mr. Mkfreeberg, that Zachriel has signed off on allowing discrimination. It’s not about “equality”, it’s about leftists paying off factions…….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/10/2014 @ 21:01
And Zachriel? You have made it clear you are a Leftist, and the Left did nothing when the Arab countries ethnically cleansed their countries of Jews. I have, I think, the measure of your views……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/10/2014 @ 21:03
Robert Mitchell Jr: Laws don’t “allow”

A law may allow you to cross the street, but not require you to cross the street.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Might I suggest the subject missing from y’all’s passive-voice question is: “the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.”

That’s not our question. Do you think there should be laws against discrimination in businesses open to the public?
- Zachriel | 06/11/2014 @ 04:56
Z: he answered the question. What part of “No” do you not understand?
- FunkyPhD | 06/11/2014 @ 05:56
FunkyPhD: What part of “No” do you not understand?

Thanks FunkyPhD. We weren’t sure because he joined it with “homosexual dollars”.

So, Robert Mitchell Jr., you are okay with the legality of “Whites Only” and “No Jews Allowed” signs in store windows.
- Zachriel | 06/11/2014 @ 06:05
Thanks FunkyPhD. We weren’t sure because he joined it with “homosexual dollars”.

So, Robert Mitchell Jr…

That was me. We’re seeing, again, why it is such an unusual practice for multiple anonymous individuals to share a single login ID: It turns out it isn’t a good idea. Like liberal policy proposals in general, it diminishes definition, effectiveness and inefficiency, and doesn’t yield any noticeable benefits. As we’ve seen many times, here & elsewhere, evaluating success vs. failure in past efforts is not the liberals’ strong suit. If they were as good at that as they are at appealing to the emotions of low-information voters, they wouldn’t be liberals.

I find it absolutely fascinating that we seem to be dealing with this simpleton mindset, “If it [discrimination] doesn’t feel good, then it shouldn’t be done, and if it shouldn’t be done then we must have a law against it” — in the case of bakery shop owners practicing the time-honored “right to refuse service to anyone,” and when anyone who gives it a moment’s thought will concede that discrimination is something people do ALL of the time, nobody’s ever gonna stop doing it, especially liberals. When we’re talking about killing babies, somehow, it’s ALL different. It would be funny if real people weren’t getting killed.
- mkfreeberg | 06/11/2014 @ 06:27
mkfreeberg: That was me.

That’s fine.

We’d be happy to hear your answer. Do you think there should be laws against racial and religious discrimination in businesses open to the public?
- Zachriel | 06/11/2014 @ 06:29
Forcing people to act in violation of their consciences, or punishing them for not doing so, under color of law, is something that has, or at least had, come to be frowned upon in custom in a considerable portion of the world (which is one major reason that portion came to be referred to as “the free world”), and something that has, or at least had, for all practical purposes come to be legally forbidden in the United States. For extremely good practical and historical reasons as well as on moral principle, I might add. And the reasons the founders had in mind have been if anything reinforced in the last two hundred years. Did someone mention “Juden verboten”? I mean, that association alone ought to send any intelligent liberal running screaming from trying to defend that sort of thing. Which raises the question: Are there any intelligent liberals left?
- Rich Fader | 06/11/2014 @ 14:58
Rich Fader: Forcing people to act in violation of their consciences, or punishing them for not doing so, under color of law, is something that has, or at least had, come to be frowned upon in custom in a considerable portion of the world (which is one major reason that portion came to be referred to as “the free world”), and something that has, or at least had, for all practical purposes come to be legally forbidden in the United States.

Most countries have laws against racial and religious discrimination in businesses open to the public. This is enforceable even if it violates the conscience of the business owner or store clerk. Indeed, any laws might violate the conscience of some person, whether it’s traffic laws, drug laws, laws concerning virgin sacrifice.

Do you think there should be laws against racial and religious discrimination in businesses open to the public?
- Zachriel | 06/11/2014 @ 16:04
Do you think there should be laws against racial and religious discrimination in businesses open to the public?

Y’all keep asking these questions that don’t change by very much. It’s not clear what y’all plan to do with the answers, what point y’all seek to make (although I suppose I can guess), or most importantly, to whom the questions are being directed.

So here’s an idea. Let’s just presume the answer is a yes — I wouldn’t want to be a victim of discrimination by a business, so we need these laws in place to protect everybody and make sure people are disallowed from discriminating until that glorious day when they don’t feel like doing it anymore.

Where’s it stop? That would be my question to y’all. When do we say, okay that’s enough laws, at some point we just accept that people recognize differences in things and react to them, and we can’t make laws against it all. Where is the line drawn? Or do we just keep legislating and legislating until society breaks down and falls apart.

Do y’all think there comes a time where we stop making more and more laws? I expect the answer is no. Liberalism, as I have said before many times, is inherently extremist. It understands “that’s enough laws” the way my ex understands “that’s enough child support,” or a dog understands “that’s enough food for me.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/11/2014 @ 19:31
mkfreeberg: So here’s an idea. Let’s just presume the answer is a yes

“Can any of your neighbors tell, Kate? I’ll ask them.”

mkfreeberg: Where’s it stop?

Per your presumption, it apparently doesn’t stop until there are laws against racial and religious discrimination at least.

mkfreeberg: Where’s it stop?

That’s the same argument segregationists made! Isn’t that interesting.

mkfreeberg: Do y’all think there comes a time where we stop making more and more laws?

Laws change as society changes, though the sum total of laws may be limited. The complexity of the law is a function of the complexity of society. The ǃKung people haven’t had the need for laws concerning traffic lights, though they do have taboos about not saying the names of the dead.
- Zachriel | 06/12/2014 @ 04:35
Though not enumerated as such in the Constitution, “freedom of association” is a venerable legal concept, emanating from both the First Amendment’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly. The question is whether and to what extent the government may restrict the individual’s right of freedom of association. Zachriel implies that once that freedom is abrogated by racial and religious anti-discrimination statutes, the government’s power to continue to restrict the freedom of association is unlimited (“Laws change as society changes. . . “The complexity of the law is a function of the complexity of society.”). The revolutionary idea behind the Constitution (and this is why hard core liberals don’t like our founding document), though, is that there should be limits not just on the “sum total” of laws, but on the kinds of laws that can be enacted (“Congress shall make no law. . .”).

Zachriel wants to “catch us” in an inconsistency, supporting laws against racial and religious discrimination, but not supporting analogous laws against discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation” (for the time being we’ll leave aside whether race, religion, and “sexual orientation” are equivalent characteristics). My question for him (her? them?) is an elaboration of Morgan’s: is there any point at which the government can exceed its authority to limit individuals’ freedom of association?
- FunkyPhD | 06/12/2014 @ 09:05
I suppose I ought to point out again what I pointed out the last time this subject came up somewhere – Jim Crow laws were active steps taken by several States that enacted and enforced segregation, and forbade common facilities. Even if someone wished otherwise they couldn’t have, say, a single lunch counter – they could go to jail, or (what’s worse) have their home and business burned to the ground by mobs while the law looked the other way.

What we have here is something of the opposite situation – instead of a law forbidding something, we would have a law compelling something. That’s quite a large difference. In addition, this law would not be replacing any law forbidding anything, it would just be added on. Nothing says that this baker or that photographer MUST NOT serve a particular person, quite unlike Jim Crow. They’re quite free to do so already if they want the gig and/or the money.

In general, a person ought to own their own labor and time, and the fruits thereof. We fought rather a costly and unpleasant war to rid ourselves of the practice of slavery. Anti-segregation laws could be seen simply as a continuation of that campaign. They were points of emphasis precisely because the active law had been otherwise. Should we now mobilize to re-enslave certain people’s labor?

“That’s the same argument segregationists made! Isn’t that interesting.”

Well, if we compel a person’s work under dual threat of force and the confiscation of much of their income, then what we have is a new segregation, and a new second class citizen – the business owner.

A bad person may make a good argument, and still be wrong… or even be correct, and still a bad person. In fact, the idea that a bad person still has certain rights is central to the idea of liberty and due process. But leaving all that aside, I will have to quote Tolkein: Samwise urges Galadriel to put a stop to all sorts of things he sees happening in the Shire; she replies, “That is where it would start; it would not stop there, alas.” At every point we have to be asking ourselves, is the solution we are thinking of worse than the problem we want to fix? Will this give power to people who care only for control rather than justice?
- nightfly | 06/12/2014 @ 12:20
FunkyPhD: Though not enumerated as such in the Constitution, “freedom of association” is a venerable legal concept, emanating from both the First Amendment’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly.

It’s enumerated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall make no law {abridging} the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

FunkyPhD: Zachriel implies that once that freedom is abrogated by racial and religious anti-discrimination statutes, the government’s power to continue to restrict the freedom of association is unlimited (“Laws change as society changes. . . “The complexity of the law is a function of the complexity of society.”).

No, that does not follow from what we wrote. That laws change as society changes in no way means the laws can abrogate rights in the Constitution. Laws change because, for instance, a person’s papers are now not made of paper.

FunkyPhD: The revolutionary idea behind the Constitution (and this is why hard core liberals don’t like our founding document), though, is that there should be limits not just on the “sum total” of laws, but on the kinds of laws that can be enacted (“Congress shall make no law. . .”).

There is no explicit Constitutional limit on the “sum total” of laws, but there are certainly limits on the kinds of laws that can be enacted.

FunkyPhD: Zachriel wants to “catch us” in an inconsistency, supporting laws against racial and religious discrimination, but not supporting analogous laws against discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation” (for the time being we’ll leave aside whether race, religion, and “sexual orientation” are equivalent characteristics).

Merely highlight any possible inconsistency for discussion. So do you think there should be laws against racial and religious discrimination in businesses open to the public?

FunkyPhD: My question for him (her? them?) is an elaboration of Morgan’s: is there any point at which the government can exceed its authority to limit individuals’ freedom of association?

Of course. For instance, private association is protected. If racists want to start a club, they can exclude blacks. But if they open a grocery to the public, they must serve the public without regard to race or religion.

nightfly: I suppose I ought to point out again what I pointed out the last time this subject came up somewhere – Jim Crow laws were active steps taken by several States that enacted and enforced segregation, and forbade common facilities.

Sure, and enforced by “a certain secret society, I don’t believe I gotta mention its name”.

nightfly: What we have here is something of the opposite situation – instead of a law forbidding something, we would have a law compelling something.

Sure. To be fair, reformers had tried amending the Constitution, then Reconstruction, but that was still followed by generations of persecution. In other words, lesser methods had failed to stem the oppression.

nightfly: Nothing says that this baker or that photographer MUST NOT serve a particular person, quite unlike Jim Crow.

The Civil Rights Act requires that the baker serve anyone regardless of race or religion, even if it violates his conscience or religion. So to be clear, you are against outlawing racial and religious discrimination in businesses open to the public?
- Zachriel | 06/12/2014 @ 12:52
“So to be clear, you are against outlawing racial and religious discrimination in businesses open to the public?”

By “against outlawing” do you mean “in favor of permitting”?

In short, no. Or as I stated above: We fought rather a costly and unpleasant war to rid ourselves of the practice of slavery. Anti-segregation laws could be seen simply as a continuation of that campaign. They were points of emphasis precisely because the active law had been otherwise.

Or, as you stated above: To be fair, reformers had tried amending the Constitution, then Reconstruction, but that was still followed by generations of persecution. In other words, lesser methods had failed to stem the oppression.

In the present case, I don’t think you could argue oppression. There’s a substantial difference, both of degree and of kind, between the inability to get decent goods or services anywhere across dozens of states, vs. having to go a whole five miles to get a cake for a ceremony that, until five years ago, didn’t exist. There is no substantial harm to remedy and no systemic wrong to right. In fact, it looks far more like a substantial harm to be imposed, and a burden on a Constitutionally-protected right enforced by penalty of law, for the sake of the convenience of a very few.

In other words, I’d say that this is a case for societal, not governmental, action. If Bakes n’ Pix Inc. doesn’t want the business, and others then take their business elsewhere as a result, then everyone gets to act freely according to their own will. To follow the logic of what you wrote above (and that I quoted here), let’s try the lesser methods first before we just blunder on ahead and really screw up the laws for everyone.
- nightfly | 06/12/2014 @ 14:05
Zachriel, why do you use plural pronouns to refer to yourself?
- FunkyPhD | 06/12/2014 @ 14:35
OFF-TOPIC

FunkyPhD: why do you use plural pronouns to refer to yourself?

A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion,

weird cult
group of poseurs
ultimate expression of internet group think
hive
commune of pedants
committee
collective pseudonym like Bourbaki
five guys
collective
tri-unity
imaginary playmates
being of more than one mind
royalty
the Z-team, a team of Zachriels
schizophrenic
someone with a tapeworm
best friend is a pooka
dissociative identity disorder
a bizzare pseudo-world affectation
gaggle of grad students
Jovian clique
a group of concerned citizens
Got a mouse in your pocket?
fellow at a Darwin institute
- Zachriel | 06/12/2014 @ 14:39
nightfly: In short, no.

Thank you for the direct answer.

nightfly: In the present case, I don’t think you could argue oppression.

Gays have been subject to abuse and persecution for centuries.

nightfly: To follow the logic of what you wrote above (and that I quoted here), let’s try the lesser methods first before we just blunder on ahead and really screw up the laws for everyone.

The logic above was that lesser methods were ineffective. We appreciate your conservatism with regards to blundering on ahead. People on the receiving end of discrimination probably see the need for change differently.

Again, we appreciate your direct answer.
- Zachriel | 06/12/2014 @ 14:43
People on the receiving end of discrimination probably see the need for change differently.

We are all on the receiving end of discrimination, 24/7.

The “public accommodations” argument is a risible and fragile little bit of legal folklore, relying here on a fallacy-of-equivocation two-step that’s been practiced elsewhere on these threads quite a few times before. I’m reminded of the old aphorism “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” The equivocation is between the last two of those three. Supposedly, it’s established law that “Whether you like it or not, whether you feel you should be able to hang up the ‘refuse service to anyone’ sign at your place of business, this is SETTLED.” But not all states bar discrimination based on sexual preference; not even most of them do. The ones that run full-tilt banning any kinds of discrimination in any public accommodation, at all whatsoever, offer a huge assortment of exceptions to what a “public accommodation” is. So this argument is really one of pounding the table, not one of pounding the law.

And, if we’re going to pound tables, well. ++thump++ The proprietor should be able to control what goes on in his business. It’s like being Captain of the ship. The authority goes with the responsibility; the restaurant-owner has a responsibility, for which he will be held to account, to ensure that his patrons do not have to endure an unpleasant dining experience. I agree, to throw someone out because of what he is, as opposed to because of what he does, is wrong. Most conservatives would agree with that; it’s part of what conservatism is, people should prosper and suffer according to their behavior and not according to their class membership. Who is the final arbiter over whether business is being turned away because of actions, or because of what a person is? The proprietor, the Captain of the ship. It simply isn’t effective for the decision to be made by anyone else.

It’s part of what makes society go. So it is to be expected that liberals want to destroy it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/13/2014 @ 05:15
[…] “It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.” Prelutsky’s pals from the sixties were intent on creating something new. “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.” Key to this vision of creating something new, was demolishing the old. Me, in the comments: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 06/13/2014 @ 05:45
mkfreeberg: The proprietor should be able to control what goes on in his business.

Which, as you suggested above, includes the power of racial and religious discrimination. It’s hard to even imagine a modern society without protections against discrimination in public accommodations, but there you are.
http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Segregated-water-fountains.jpg
- Zachriel | 06/13/2014 @ 06:51
Zachriel: I do not appreciate your failure to answer my question. At the risk of irritating other readers of this blog (as you have) by repeating myself, I ask again: why do you refer to yourself with plural pronouns?
- FunkyPhD | 06/13/2014 @ 08:46
FunkyPhD: I do not appreciate your failure to answer my question.

A number of theories have been proposed, but it’s off-topic in any case.
- Zachriel | 06/13/2014 @ 09:04
I disagree that it’s off topic. Y’all have effectively confirmed that y’all’s argument is equivocation, these rules about public accommodations ae not settled law, they have to do with pandering to theatrical moral outrage of Internet busybodies.

We should therefore know who the busybodies are, as the next step in the discussion. After all, someone somewhere is outraged by just about anything.
- mkfreeberg | 06/13/2014 @ 09:24
mkfreeberg: Y’all have effectively confirmed that y’all’s argument is equivocation

Are you saying that there are no laws concerning discrimination and public accommodations?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
- Zachriel | 06/13/2014 @ 09:28
Also: our modern society has ample protections against discrimination. You go elsewhere and take your dollars with you. The business that discriminaated against you, suffers. You tell your friends, the business suffers some more. It’s been pretty effective, moreso than, say, cash-for-clunkers and such.
- mkfreeberg | 06/13/2014 @ 09:30
mkfreeberg our modern society has ample protections against discrimination.

Such as 42 U.S. Code § 2000.

mkfreeberg You go elsewhere and take your dollars with you.

Which is why there has never been discrimination against color or gender or religion or sexual orientation.
- Zachriel | 06/13/2014 @ 09:51
Which is why there has never been discrimination against color or gender or religion or sexual orientation.

Here is y’all’s claim:

It’s hard to even imagine a modern society without protections against discrimination in public accommodations, but there you are.

This is false, if it is intended to be a characterization of our “modern society” in which people can, and do, vote with their feet on a pretty much constant basis.

Here is my claim:

Liberalism, as I have said before many times, is inherently extremist. It understands “that’s enough laws” the way my ex understands “that’s enough child support,” or a dog understands “that’s enough food for me.”

Thank y’all for proving my point. Y’all just engaged in a very public bit of self-induced hallucination, that there are no protections at all available against being discriminated by businesses — who lose patronage from customers of all sexual preferences and colors and creeds, all the time, over just about any issue possible. Just like an ex-wife who hasn’t been paid all the money she thinks she has coming, conjures up an alternative reality in which she hasn’t been paid anything at all. Or, a dog engages in canine fantasy that he hasn’t been fed, based on the highly questionable logic that if a second bowl were to be placed in front of him, he’d eat it.

Liberalism, like any other inherently extremist movement, cannot and will not say “Alright, that’s good, that’s enough. Let’s stop now.” For them to even begin to ponder the thought, you have to have a conservative to point it out, and then they don’t absorb it they just argue with it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 03:57
mkfreeberg: This is false

How can an imagination be false? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

mkfreeberg: This is false, if it is intended to be a characterization of our “modern society” in which people can, and do, vote with their feet on a pretty much constant basis.

Which is why persistent and pervasive racial and religious discrimination has never occurred, can never occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman's_Agreement

mkfreeberg: “Alright, that’s good, that’s enough. Let’s stop now.”

Well then, what is “enough”? You have already indicated you are against laws against racial and religious discrimination. Would you also unwind labor laws, such as those regulating child labor? How about women’s suffrage? Slavery? The nobility as the center of political power? The Church as the arbiter of matters of conscience? Just wondering, where would you say, “Alright, that’s good, that’s enough. Let’s stop now.”?
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 05:44
How can an imagination be false? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

Y’all were speaking of an imagination, and only of an imagination? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

It’s hard to even imagine a modern society without protections against discrimination in public accommodations, but there you are.

Well then, what is “enough”?

That’s exactly the question I asked of y’all. Y’all’s answer was:

…it apparently doesn’t stop until there are laws against racial and religious discrimination at least .

This would be a satisfactory answer if the question was “where does it not stop?”

But y’all can’t say where it stops, which reinforces (some would say proves) my statement that liberalism is inherently extremist. It doesn’t know when to stop any more than a dog knows when to stop eating.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 06:19
mkfreeberg: Y’all were speaking of an imagination, and only of an imagination?

The statement you said was false was “It’s hard to even imagine a modern society without protections against discrimination in public accommodations, but there you are.” You might argue we lack imagination, and then paint a picture.

mkfreeberg: That’s exactly the question I asked of y’all. Y’all’s answer was:

Laws change as society changes, though the sum total of laws may be limited. The complexity of the law is a function of the complexity of society.

Well then, what is “enough”? You have already indicated you are against laws against racial and religious discrimination. Would you also unwind labor laws, such as those regulating child labor? How about women’s suffrage? Slavery? The nobility as the center of political power? The Church as the arbiter of matters of conscience? Just wondering, where would you say, “Alright, that’s good, that’s enough. Let’s stop now.”?
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 06:22
The statement you said was false was “It’s hard to even imagine a modern society without protections against discrimination in public accommodations, but there you are.” You might argue we lack imagination, and then paint a picture.

Perhaps I misinterpreted. I thought “there you are” to be an indictment of the status quo in which patrons, finding themselves at the receiving end of discrimination, have yet to prevail in court or before some human-rights-commission and must vote with their feet (arguably a much more effective remedy, but let’s look past that for now). At any rate, it would certainly be false that this leaves the victim-class with NO protections.

This seems to be a debate about victimhood. I side with Eleanor Roosevelt. Evidently, y’all think the old battleaxe had it wrong, and people can find themselves to be victims, any hour of any day, with or without their consent, and there’s nothing they can do about it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 19:43
mkfreeberg: Perhaps I misinterpreted. I thought “there you are” to be an indictment of the status quo in which patrons, finding themselves at the receiving end of discrimination, have yet to prevail in court or before some human-rights-commission and must vote with their feet (arguably a much more effective remedy, but let’s look past that for now).

Z: t’s hard to even imagine a modern society without protections against discrimination in public accommodations, but there you are.

While we have trouble imagining a modern society without protections against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations, you apparently don’t. You think that market forces alone are sufficient to protect people from discrimination.

As you never grapple with arguments contrary to your view, you probably don’t remember our argument. If market forces were sufficient to protect people from discrimination, then there would never has been persistent and pervasive racial and religious discrimination. Does that comport with the facts?

mkfreeberg: I side with Eleanor Roosevelt. “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

While a nice thought; however, people can damage you economically and politically, and when it involves a racial minority that has been oppressed for generations, it is especially pernicious.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 05:14
While we have trouble imagining a modern society without protections against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations, you apparently don’t.

False. This has been explained to y’all already.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 06:50
mkfreeberg: False. This has been explained to y’all all

What precisely is false. That we can’t imagine a modern society without protections against racial and religious discrimination, or that you can imagine such a society?
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 07:58
What precisely is false. That we can’t imagine a modern society without protections against racial and religious discrimination, or that you can imagine such a society?

That there aren’t any such protections.

In this example: The guys who want to get married, can get a cake baked anywhere they want, regardless of whether this baker is forced to attend sensitivity training or not.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:20
,b>mkfreeberg: That there aren’t any such protections

In the U.S., it includes 42 U.S. Code § 2000.

We can’t imagine a modern society without *legal* protections against racial and religious discrimination. Okay. We understand you are saying that there would still be protections, even without legal protections, that it is the market that provides such protections.

Which is why persistent and pervasive racial and religious discrimination has never occurred, can never occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman's_Agreement
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:23
In the U.S., it includes 42 U.S. Code § 2000.

Again with the equivocation fallacy. In most states, it is not illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference.

We can’t imagine a modern society without *legal* protections against racial and religious discrimination. Okay.

Seek help, then, instead of tinkering with our legal framework until it suits y’all. Which it never will.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:33
mkfreeberg: Again with the equivocation fallacy. In most states, it is not illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference.

That wasn’t the question. From our very first comment on the thread:

Do you think businesses open to the public should be able to discriminate against people because of their race or religion?
http://www.google.com/search?q=juden+verboten&tbm=isch
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:34
Do you think businesses open to the public should be able to discriminate against people because of their race or religion?

Oh. So, the word “legal” has suddenly become unimportant again. Back to the equivocation fallacy.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:36
Do you think businesses open to the public should be able to lawfully discriminate against people because of their race or religion?
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:38
Do you think businesses open to the public should be able to lawfully discriminate against people because of their race or religion?

Sure. The alternative is for government to force them to serve people they don’t want to serve.

Who would even WANT that?

If y’all were the gay couple being served this wedding cake, baked by the guy who didn’t want to bake it for y’all — would y’all eat it?
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:41
mkfreeberg: The alternative is for government to force them to serve people they don’t want to serve. Who would even WANT that?

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/library/civilrights/sitins/sitin.jpg
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:43
mkfreeberg: mkfreeberg: The alternative is for government to force them to serve people they don’t want to serve. Who would even WANT that?

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r293/VIEWLINER/0901/MLK2.jpg
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:45
Notably, y’all didn’t answer the question.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:45
mkfreeberg: Notably, y’all didn’t answer the question.

mkfreeberg: The alternative is for government to force them to serve people they don’t want to serve. Who would even WANT that?

Um, we did answer it. We even provided photographs of people who wanted laws to force people to serve people they didn’t want to serve. Did you want more evidence? The vote to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations, passed 289–126 in the House, and 73-27 in the Senate, and signed the President Johnson.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/11/lbj_civil_rights_act_crop.jpg
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:55
Um, we did answer it. We even provided photographs of people who wanted laws to force people to serve people they didn’t want to serve. Did you want more evidence? The vote to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations, passed 289–126 in the House, and 73-27 in the Senate, and signed the President Johnson.

And, evidently this did not bring the results desired. But would y’all eat the cake, baked for y’all by the baker who was forced to bake it against his will, after he attended sensitivity training?

Me, I’d just go to a different baker. That does make better sense, doesn’t it? I notice y’all never answered the question about eating the cake.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:59
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 09:00
mkfreeberg: And, evidently this did not bring the results desired.

There are very few people who don’t think that forcing the end of segregation was a good thing, for both whites and blacks. But you’ve made your views clear. You are against such laws.
http://flatrock.org.nz/static/frontpage/assets/news/large_segregation.jpg
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 09:03
@Morgan,

The Cuttlefish have been waiting 50+ comments now to call you a racist, and link one of their precious .jpgs. They just squirted in their pants.
- Severian | 06/15/2014 @ 12:49
Severian: The Cuttlefish have been waiting 50+ comments now to call you a racist

We doubt very seriously that mkfreeberg is a racist; however, his libertarian political views would not have addressed the very real concerns of blacks and other minorities. Here’s an example from the period:

Dr. King: On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 12:58
Get back in your shame closet.
- Severian | 06/15/2014 @ 14:27
[…] pepperoni is his unique style of cultural expression, the whole weight of the federal government comes crashing down on him. Makes […]
- A Good Excuse for Some Cheesecake | Rotten Chestnuts | 06/16/2014 @ 15:43

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Baker Must Take Sensitivity TrainingTuesday, June 10th, 2014

Baker Must Take Sensitivity Training
Tuesday, June 10th, 2014