|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 23, 2017 18:42:24 GMT
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,071
|
Post by cherry68 on Jun 23, 2017 19:23:29 GMT
I read the article, but I don't get why you named religious liberty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 20:06:53 GMT
What an idiotic thing to do. I'm all for gay rights, but "the right to not be discriminated against by private business owners" should not exist. I despise people that discriminate; but government intervention is not the solution. Instead of forcing homophobic companies to collect more money from gay customers, how about we give them the choice to deny those customers, and have their business struggle as a result? In other words, we're forcing homophobic assholes to succeed in the business world at gunpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 23, 2017 21:59:19 GMT
I read the article, but I don't get why you named religious liberty. The discriminatory laws referred to in the article were passed under the guise of preserving religious liberty.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jun 23, 2017 22:09:36 GMT
What an idiotic thing to do. I'm all for gay rights, but "the right to not be discriminated against by private business owners" should not exist. I despise people that discriminate; but government intervention is not the solution. Instead of forcing homophobic companies to collect more money from gay customers, how about we give them the choice to deny those customers, and have their business struggle as a result? In other words, we're forcing homophobic assholes to succeed in the business world at gunpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 23, 2017 22:13:52 GMT
Instead of forcing homophobic companies to collect more money from gay customers, how about we give them the choice to deny those customers, and have their business struggle as a result? Or...I don't know, we could mandate that companies which offer public services should act in accordance with the egalitarian principles outlined in our founding documents. Governments are tasked with preserving the interests of the common good and welfare in addition to safeguarding citizens' rights, which means interfering in the private market when corporations infringe on those rights. Equality and social justice aren't things you just wait for the universe to sort out, especially when you have the means to sort them out yourself, or at least the means to drive toward that purpose. Xavier Becerra stepped in where the Trump administration won't to send a clear message that discrimination is intolerable. Secondly, the laws mentioned have nothing to do with companies denying goods and services, but denying adoption and foster care options to LGBT families. This is about denying vital and loving care to needy children on the basis of an applicant's sexuality. It's not like these families can just go to another organization to find another kid like you would a wedding cake.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 23, 2017 22:17:47 GMT
Instead of forcing homophobic companies to collect more money from gay customers, how about we give them the choice to deny those customers, and have their business struggle as a result? Or...I don't know, we could mandate that companies which offer public services should act in accordance with the egalitarian principles outlined in our founding documents. Governments are tasked with preserving the interests of the common good and welfare in addition to safeguarding citizens' rights, which means interfering in the private market when corporations infringe on those rights. Equality and social justice aren't things you just wait for the universe to sort out, especially when you have the means to sort them out yourself, or at least the means to drive toward that purpose. Xavier Becerra stepped in where the Trump administration won't to send a clear message that discrimination is intolerable. Secondly, the laws mentioned have nothing to do with companies denying goods and services, but denying adoption and foster care options to LGBT families. This is about denying vital and loving care to needy children on the basis of an applicant's sexuality. It's not like these families can just go to another organization to find another kid like you would a wedding cake. I find it pretty ridiculous how religious conservatives will claim to be "pro-life" when they do shit like this that gets in the way of orphans finding a loving family.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,595
Likes: 2,071
|
Post by cherry68 on Jun 23, 2017 22:20:52 GMT
I read the article, but I don't get why you named religious liberty. The discriminatory laws referred to in the article were passed under the guise of preserving religious liberty. Thanks. I'm not familiar with American law, are families asking to adopt a child put under examination by a government agency /social services or something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 22:42:33 GMT
Instead of forcing homophobic companies to collect more money from gay customers, how about we give them the choice to deny those customers, and have their business struggle as a result? Or...I don't know, we could mandate that companies which offer public services should act in accordance with the egalitarian principles outlined in our founding documents. Governments are tasked with preserving the interests of the common good and welfare in addition to safeguarding citizens' rights, which means interfering in the private market when corporations infringe on those rights. Equality and social justice aren't things you just wait for the universe to sort out, especially when you have the means to sort them out yourself, or at least the means to drive toward that purpose. Xavier Becerra stepped in where the Trump administration won't to send a clear message that discrimination is intolerable. Secondly, the laws mentioned have nothing to do with companies denying goods and services, but denying adoption and foster care options to LGBT families. This is about denying vital and loving care to needy children on the basis of an applicant's sexuality. It's not like these families can just go to another organization to find another kid like you would a wedding cake. My initial post still stands. Not only is enforcing tolerance anti-liberty, but it's also ineffective in removing intolerance. If government intervenes in a business' ability to deny certain people/products which they see as immoral, they only fuel the business owner's intolerance. Unless the public services are being offered federally they should not be held to any egalitarian principles. As for adoption, I understand that it complicates things a bit more, but I think the free market ultimately provides what's best for the consumer. There's no law against adoption agencies serving gay couples, so if there's no/limited agencies offering that service, there's a gap in the market. Another company will inevitably fill that gap, even if they're homophobic. That's why I think the line "greed is good" is kinda legitimate. If there's an opportunity to make money; race, sexual orientation, and religion all becomes irrelevant to greedy companies.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 23, 2017 23:40:47 GMT
but I think the free market ultimately provides what's best for the consumer. Sorry, but that's total bullshit. Corporations aren't altruistic. They have a long history of cutting corners and exploiting workers. In the case of those four states specifically, because they're so fucking socially backwards, LGBTQ discrimination probably wouldn't hurt their businesses in the slightest. Your response to those affected: "Too bad, move to another state or wait for things to get better." Your response to adoption applicants and potential foster caregivers is even worse. I don't find that kind of gross apathy acceptable. The free market doesn't provide what's best for the consumer if it actively discriminates against the consumer. The only way to ensure that consumers (and employees) are being fairly treated is to enforce anti-discrimination laws. Those are the only laws that keep corporations tangibly in check. Waiting for the free market to sort everything out is just coin-flipping; sometimes it works, many times it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 23, 2017 23:47:48 GMT
The discriminatory laws referred to in the article were passed under the guise of preserving religious liberty. Thanks. I'm not familiar with American law, are families asking to adopt a child put under examination by a government agency /social services or something? Obviously there's a background check implemented, but otherwise I believe most of the decisions are left up to the discretion of individual agencies, and in the case of Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, and South Dakota, agencies are now allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ applicants. I'm not sure if those laws pertain to publicly-sponsored agencies or just the private ones.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous ĂȘtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jun 24, 2017 0:11:39 GMT
My initial post still stands. Not only is enforcing tolerance anti-liberty, but it's also ineffective in removing intolerance. If government intervenes in a business' ability to deny certain people/products which they see as immoral, they only fuel the business owner's intolerance. Unless the public services are being offered federally they should not be held to any egalitarian principles. What percentage of Americans identify as LGBT? 3 or 4%? And how much lower is that number in the Southern states we're talking about? Yeah, good luck waiting for the free market to naturally create a progressive and tolerant environment there. It's much, much easier to tell the 4% to fend for themselves when you're in the 96% to whom everybody caters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 0:14:38 GMT
but I think the free market ultimately provides what's best for the consumer. Sorry, but that's total bullshit. Corporations aren't altruistic. They have a long history of cutting corners and exploiting workers. In the case of those four states specifically, because they're so fucking socially backwards, LGBTQ discrimination probably wouldn't hurt their businesses in the slightest. Your response to those affected: "Too bad, move to another state or wait for things to get better." Your response to adoption applicants and potential foster caregivers is even worse. I don't find that kind of gross apathy acceptable. The free market doesn't provide what's best for the consumer if it actively discriminates against the consumer. The only way to ensure that consumers (and employees) are being fairly treated is to enforce anti-discrimination laws. Those are the only laws that keep corporations tangibly in check. Waiting for the free market to sort everything out is just coin-flipping; sometimes it works, many times it doesn't. What you're describing is crony capitalism, something I'm staunchly against. Corporations can only exist with government intervention, and companies can only be monopolized with government intervention. On the other hand, in a free market, competition would be absolutely rampant. The only way to survive in such a brutal climate would be to satisfy the consumer. There would be no state leverage, therefore each company would have an equal opportunity to succeed in the marketplace. This is ideal for both the consumer (whom the businesses are competing to please) and the worker (vital for the survival of a business). It's clear that we're not gonna reach an agreement anytime soon. Our entire worldviews are directly contrary. I don't think continuing this argument will really go anywhere beneficial, but I do respect your opinions- I just see a free market as being a better solution to the problem we both want to solve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 0:16:17 GMT
My initial post still stands. Not only is enforcing tolerance anti-liberty, but it's also ineffective in removing intolerance. If government intervenes in a business' ability to deny certain people/products which they see as immoral, they only fuel the business owner's intolerance. Unless the public services are being offered federally they should not be held to any egalitarian principles. What percentage of Americans identify as LGBT? 3 or 4%? And how much lower is that number in the Southern states we're talking about? Yeah, good luck waiting for the free market to naturally create a progressive and tolerant environment there. It's much, much easier to tell the 4% to fend for themselves when you're in the 96% to whom everybody caters. 4% of the population is still a large gap in the market that any half-decent businessman would seek to take advantage of.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 24, 2017 0:51:02 GMT
On the other hand, in a free market, competition would be absolutely rampant. The only way to survive in such a brutal climate would be to satisfy the consumer. There would be no state leverage, therefore each company would have an equal opportunity to succeed in the marketplace. Well, unless one company is starting out with significantly more money and/or connections than other upstarts. Much easier to stamp out or devour competition when you're a bigger fish.
|
|
|
Post by pessimusreincarnated on Jun 24, 2017 4:27:23 GMT
This is authoritarian bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 24, 2017 4:56:13 GMT
This is authoritarian bullshit. The measure only restricts state-sponsored travel. California residents are still obviously allowed to visit all those states (not like any of them are known for thriving tourism), so I don't see how it's authoritarian. Orientation-based discrimination is intolerable, especially when it affects the wellbeing of disadvantaged children, and Becerra isn't tolerating it. I don't see the problem.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jun 24, 2017 14:52:13 GMT
On the other hand, in a free market, competition would be absolutely rampant. The only way to survive in such a brutal climate would be to satisfy the consumer. There would be no state leverage, therefore each company would have an equal opportunity to succeed in the marketplace. Well, unless one company is starting out with significantly more money and/or connections than other upstarts. Much easier to stamp out or devour competition when you're a bigger fish. Yup, that's the problem with believing in the free market: Assuming people have similar starting places. We're living in a snowball-effect-system with a limited ammount of snow (your gain rises with the capital invested leading to exponential growth but resources don't multiply in the meantime). If you're too late to the game, you'd better better hope you inherit a big snowball from your parents or you're fighting an uphill battle. If there are no big enough companies who are willing to give adoption rights to LBTQ people, it's not gonna happen anytime soon. Is it normal for completely private companies to handle adoption anyway? They have no state sponsoring or anything? I mean if they have it's easy: Just cut it if people are homophobes.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 24, 2017 16:15:52 GMT
Well, unless one company is starting out with significantly more money and/or connections than other upstarts. Much easier to stamp out or devour competition when you're a bigger fish. Yup, that's the problem with believing in the free market: Assuming people have similar starting places. We're living in a snowball-effect-system with a limited ammount of snow (your gain rises with the capital invested leading to exponential growth but resources don't multiply in the meantime). If you're too late to the game, you'd better better hope you inherit a big snowball from your parents or you're fighting an uphill battle. If there are no big enough companies who are willing to give adoption rights to LBTQ people, it's not gonna happen anytime soon. Is it normal for completely private companies to handle adoption anyway? They have no state sponsoring or anything? I mean if they have it's easy: Just cut it if people are homophobes. I admittedly don't know much about how private adoption agencies are run, but I do believe they undergo state sponsoring. The issue with the recent legislation passed in Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota is that it would allow these agencies to exclude LGBTQ persons on the basis of religious liberty, so any attempt by the state to crack down on it would be argued in court as impeding on the beliefs of those agencies. That argument could definitely be fought in court, but it likely won't come to that in the near future in those states given their greater general discomfort towards LGBTQ individuals.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jun 27, 2017 0:43:39 GMT
It's nice to see some of the states fighting back against this administration's total apathy on this issue. The fact that you support this shows what a dumb cunt you are.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jun 27, 2017 6:10:24 GMT
It's nice to see some of the states fighting back against this administration's total apathy on this issue. The fact that you support this shows what a dumb cunt you are. Takes one to know one, you brainless twat.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jun 27, 2017 17:28:05 GMT
The fact that you support this shows what a dumb cunt you are. Takes one to know one, you brainless twat. You do realize this would affect gay people in a negative way you imbecile.
|
|