Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion

[Ginkgo]

Gingko,

I’m actually sympathetic to the notion of natural rights; I’m just not convinced (yet) that the Lockean version includes a natural right of protection against arbitrary discrimination in the marketplace. It’s possible Locke would permit a law like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (section II), which prohibits business owners offering “public accommodations” from denying goods and services to prospective customers on the basis of race and skin color. If he did, however, I believe he would do so on the basis of “peace” (his word) in civil society, not as a matter of natural right. This gets close, I think, to what AS mentioned earlier concerning excellence as a competing good vis-à-vis rights. Still, I think there’s a good argument to be made that Locke would at least hesitate in fully embracing such a law, given his preoccupation with the protection of private property.

You say, that you are not convinced that the Lockean version of natural rights protects against discrimination. I say you may well be right. I think it all depends on how good your legal argument is.There are actually very few rights that are considered "natural". Most rights are legal rights given to us by the state. However, if you can demonstrate that a right is "natural" then this goes a long way in a High Court. Freedom of speech being an important one.

Regarding this particular case it seems that freedom not to 'promote' a particular class of people, proponents is the latest approach to the High Court. The argument appears to be that the anti-discrimination legislation is a violation of "freedom from speech". In other words, the legislation is forcing people to promote government speech.

Who would have thought of that?

[Kayla]

Kayla: Perhaps, but even so, “a lot” is not quite the same thing as “all.” At any rate, the distinction between habituated and deliberate assholes doesn’t have to do with anything, if you don’t want it to. As I said earlier, depending on how absolute your definition of “asshole” is (and it seems nearly all-encompassing in terms of racial discrimination), there may be no point in addressing this matter further. I’ll simply remind you of my original, twofold reason for addressing your “asshole” comment in the first place: 1) to highlight our different approaches to assessing assholery, and 2) to voice my concern that such labels are regrettably becoming more frequent as a means to foreclosing reasoned discourse over controversial topics. That’s all.

true asshole is a term that is overused

but i am curious in how you would choose to describe the man who called me a yellow n***** bitch?

As for the counterarguments laid against those who criticize homosexuality, if they’re as unquestionable as you imply they are, then I suppose there’s no point in considering them further.

i am not saying that all arguments against homosexuality are unquestionably bad - i have no way of knowing that

but i have not come across any argument against homosexuality that was not unquestionably bad - i have seen nothing substantive that is up for debate there

As for the definition of homosexuality, sure, I think “regularly having sex with someone of the same gender” is a sufficient if not necessary definition. I would probably go further, however, and say that homosexuality obtains in a number of erotic and semi-erotic manifestations.

i was asking specifically what you meant by 'homosexual lifestyle'. the way it is used it seems to mean a bit more than merely having sex with someone of the same sex - but i am not sure what it means.

[i_another]

Kayla,

I’m sorry to hear that you found yourself in a situation like that. Assuming that a person uses such language unprovoked, I say you’d be well within reason to call him an asshole. I’m of a mixed race as well, but fortunately I’ve never found myself in that sort of situation. That said, I don’t place the person you mentioned in the same category as the Southern old-timer who, without vitriol, opines, “Well, in my view black folk and white folk ought not to get married.” It doesn’t matter if his opinion turns out to be contrary to the truth; I believe he's entitled to it. I happen to disagree with the old-timer, but, as I said before, our simple disagreement doesn’t necessarily make either of us an asshole.

That’s the angle I approach this sort of thing from, and it leads back to my earlier comment about reasoned disputes over the moral legitimacy of homosexuality. Many of the anti-homosexuality arguments you mentioned may turn out to be flimsy or patently false, but, speaking for myself, so long as my fellow interlocutor remains polite and argues his point in good faith, I’m quite willing and even happy to engage in dialogue with him. (Note: I don’t think concern about the true etiology of AIDS is so easily dismissible, and I’m even less convinced that teleological arguments about the nature of the human condition are so evidently unpersuasive.)

My apologies for being unclear about the term “homosexual lifestyle.” Now that you’ve caused me to reflect on it, I’m wondering if the term is redundant. Unless I can think of a reason to salvage it, I suppose it’s better to use the word “homosexuality” instead, which encompasses all the qualities of being homosexual. And for clarity’s sake, I take those qualities to include the plain sexual act itself as well as other ordinary activities, statuses, and institutions that are defined in part by homosexuality—e.g., gay marriage, gay adoptive parents, etc.

[Kayla]

Assuming that a person uses such language unprovoked, I say you’d be well within reason to call him an asshole.

i would think that even with provocation that would still make him an asshole

i was carrying a box that was in retrospect too heavy for me to carry - at one point i rested it on his truck to keep my balance

he was concerned about his truck being scratched and expressed his concern in a thoroughly douchebaggy way

“Well, in my view black folk and white folk ought not to get married.” It doesn’t matter if his opinion turns out to be contrary to the truth; I believe he's entitled to it. I happen to disagree with the old-timer, but, as I said before, our simple disagreement doesn’t necessarily make either of us an asshole.

fair enough

a lot of southern old timers have rather odd views on the subjects of race and gender but that does not generally stop them from being civil

That’s the angle I approach this sort of thing from, and it leads back to my earlier comment about reasoned disputes over the moral legitimacy of homosexuality. Many of the anti-homosexuality arguments you mentioned may turn out to be flimsy or patently false, but, speaking for myself, so long as my fellow interlocutor remains polite and argues his point in good faith, I’m quite willing and even happy to engage in dialogue with him. (Note: I don’t think concern about the true etiology of AIDS is so easily dismissible, and I’m even less convinced that teleological arguments about the nature of the human condition are so evidently unpersuasive.)

even if there is a link between homosexuality and aids - that is hardly an argument against the sort of homosexuals who want to get married - or lesbians in general who have lower std rates than heterosxuals

and having unprotected sex with complete strangers is a very bad idea, aids or no aids

also vast majority of men who think homosexuality is wrong see no problem jacking off to gir girl porn what is the deal with that

My apologies for being unclear about the term “homosexual lifestyle.” Now that you’ve caused me to reflect on it, I’m wondering if the term is redundant. Unless I can think of a reason to salvage it, I suppose it’s better to use the word “homosexuality” instead, which encompasses all the qualities of being homosexual. And for clarity’s sake, I take those qualities to include the plain sexual act itself as well as other ordinary activities, statuses, and institutions that are defined in part by homosexuality—e.g., gay marriage, gay adoptive parents, etc.

fair enuf

the way people talk about homosexual lifestyle one would think that homosexuals spend all their time going to orgies and being fabulous (for gay men) or manly (for lesbians) - which is patently ridiculous

a lot of homosexuals live boring ordinary lives - much like many heterosexuals

[henry quirk]

Ahem...

-A gay, atheist print shop owner refuses to print up 1000 pamphlets ordered by a local Baptist church...the proposed text of the pamphlets starkly proclaims homosex a sin and declares homosexuals will burn in hell.

Is the print shop owner right or wrong?

Why?


-A straight, Catholic print shop owner refuses to print up 1000 pamphlets ordered by a local LGBT advocacy group...the proposed text of the pamphlets starkly proclaims the group's support of gay marriage.

Is the print shop owner right or wrong?

Why?

[Ginkgo]

Ahem...

-A gay, atheist print shop owner refuses to print up 1000 pamphlets ordered by a local Baptist church...the proposed text of the pamphlets starkly proclaims homosex a sin and declares homosexuals will burn in hell.

Is the print shop owner right or wrong?

Why?


-A straight, Catholic print shop owner refuses to print up 1000 pamphlets ordered by a local LGBT advocacy group...the proposed text of the pamphlets starkly proclaims the group's support of gay marriage.

Is the print shop owner right or wrong?

Why?

I think you asked that question before, but there was no reply. Probably because it is a very difficult question to answer. This is just a guess, but I think under the current ant-discrimination legislation one would have to accept those jobs-if push came to shove that is.

As I say this is just a guess.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I asked before, *got no answer, am asking again.

Thanks for stepping up, Ginkgo

However, I'm less concerned (or, interested) in the legal imperatives than the ethical (or, moral) ones.

Apart from legal compulsions: Are the owners 'right' to deny services to folks each opposes?









*not because the questions are difficult but -- I think -- because these questions highlight the essential hypocrisy of some folks who'll cry discrimination, but -- when the shoe is on the other foot -- will dance hard and fast to justify their own prejudices

[i_another]

Hi Henry,

I don’t know that moral rightness necessarily obtains in the strict business decision aspect of these situations, if that’s what you mean by the words “right” and “wrong.” In line with my previous comments, however, I would say that both the gay atheist and the straight Catholic have a right to refuse products and services to whomever they please and for whatever reason suits them.

Note: I just now saw Gingko’s and your subsequent posts. My apologies for overlooking your original queries.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, you, i, in a roundabout way, were the only one up-thread to answer...thanks for that (even though you weren't aware you were answering).

And: "both the gay atheist and the straight Catholic have a right to refuse products and services to whomever they please and for whatever reason suits them."

Exactly right.

[Ginkgo]

Yeah, I asked before, *got no answer, am asking again.

Thanks for stepping up, Ginkgo

However, I'm less concerned (or, interested) in the legal imperatives than the ethical (or, moral) ones.

Apart from legal compulsions: Are the owners 'right' to deny services to folks each opposes?

I think you are right. Hopefully the law takes an ethical perspective as well. Unfortunately sometimes it doesn't.

From memory, I think the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the right of the states anti-discrimination legislation when it comes to a business doing photography weddings. I think the decision was based on the requirements of the legislation that doesn't allow discrimination based on sex.

But here is the interesting bit.

Apparently the photography business has petitioned the Supreme Court on the basis that the legislation infringes on the right of free speech. More specifically, the right not to speak and the right to freedom of expression. The argument is basically that freedom of speech also entails the right not to be forced to speak the government line. That line being the anti-discrimination legislation.

It think it will be argued that photography is actually a form of artistic expression. Freedom of speech is also the right to artistic expression. The right to express the contents of one's mind is a form of art. By forcing the business to take photographs at a gay wedding is to force a modification of artistic expression in the face of government legislation. In other words, the art will ultimately be an expression of government anti-discrimination legislation.

Regardless of your position... I mean,how clever is that argument?

[SpheresOfBalance]

In his original thread, VoT sought clarity regarding the constitutionality of Arizona Senate Bill 1062 (PDF copy). The activity in that thread quickly shifted to a discussion concerning the nature and propriety of homosexuality. That is unsurprising because we're human, and human beings love to exercise their reason by wrestling with complicated ideas. So in this thread I hope to create an opportunity for a discussion that allows for a more direct consideration of homosexuality within the context of Arizona's proposed legislation. To that end, we may want to think about the following questions:

• Is this an issue about rights?
• If so, what rights are at stake and why are they to be considered "rights"?
• To what extent can a political community legitimately use the law to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable human characteristics, behaviors, etc.?
• Is a law like SB 1062 acceptable on any grounds, or is it patently and thoroughly unjust?

I'm new here and I probably missed out on numerous discussions about this or similar topics. Still, I thought I'd invite some discourse, just in case some of you want to exercise your minds and typin' fingers.

What say you?

Well I see it this way, to deny someone something, because you're trying to teach them your lesson, as if you know it's right, is wrong, because in truth you don't, as it isn't necessarily right. If in fact the public, of all homosexuals, boycotted the business on similar grounds, the business would be outraged. The owner would have to file for bankruptcy, then how about the lawyers, all of which would be homosexuals of course, denying to represent him at the hearing, wherein the homosexual judge would deny his application. You starting to get the picture? Lets put heterosexuals in the exact same situation, in all respects, i.e., numbers, prejudices, etc. So now, how do you heterosexuals feel? Exactly! They say that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" In this case the store has absolute power as they can still survive if they selectively deny selling to one or two individuals, but the whole town? It might just change their perspective. Often humans are petty, because it satisfies their twisted want to feel superior. I wonder if they would sell to homosexuals, if one time they had been drowning, sure to die frantically of asphyxiation, as the hand of a homosexual reached in to pluck them from deaths door?

The entity with the most power, should be the one that bends over backwards, in reverence to the rewards of such power.

[henry quirk]

"how clever is that argument?"

Pretty clever, which is why it'll probably fail.

Seems to me: when folks start clamoring about 'art' they lose the potential sympathies of most folks (cuz most folks think 'art' is high-falutin' and prissy).

A cleaner, more direct, argument, I think, is to simply stand on one's right to do as one pleases with one's property (which includes a privately owned business).

That 'this' one or 'that' one disapproves of what another does with his or her property shouldn't even enter into the discussion.

More concretely: can't see one damned good reason why a 'gay, atheist print shop owner' or a 'straight, Catholic print shop owner' should have to accept work from folks (with ideas) either find repugnant.

[Kayla]

there is another aspect to this that i am surprised no one is bringing up

in the pre civil rights south african-americans were systematically excluded from participation from all aspects of society - through discrimination against them in all spheres that was very wide spread

one did not have the option to just take a bus run by a rival company that did not have a blacks in the back policy, or to go to another store

but most print shops could not care less if you are printing posters inviting everyone to a big gay orgy, as long as you are a paying customer

so in this case allowing one print shop to not print such posters if they do not want does not have much overall effect - so other shop gets the business instead

i know many fundamentalist christian business owners - i live in the bible belt - and most of them strongly believe that money has no sexual orientation

so the state's concern should not be micromanaging everyone's lives - but preventing eggregri0us widespread discrimination against particular groups that were victims of such discrimination - and the 1960s civil rights laws accomplished that

[SpheresOfBalance]

there is another aspect to this that i am surprised no one is bringing up

in the pre civil rights south african-americans were systematically excluded from participation from all aspects of society - through discrimination against them in all spheres that was very wide spread

one did not have the option to just take a bus run by a rival company that did not have a blacks in the back policy, or to go to another store

but most print shops could not care less if you are printing posters inviting everyone to a big gay orgy, as long as you are a paying customer

so in this case allowing one print shop to not print such posters if they do not want does not have much overall effect - so other shop gets the business instead

i know many fundamentalist christian business owners - i live in the bible belt - and most of them strongly believe that money has no sexual orientation

so the state's concern should not be micromanaging everyone's lives - but preventing eggregri0us widespread discrimination against particular groups that were victims of such discrimination - and the 1960s civil rights laws accomplished that

Assuming there are alternatives, everywhere the law does or does not apply.

Luxury items aren't so bad, but necessities??

I think I'll suck up all the oxygen and only give it to poor purple, devil worshipers, with warts on their nose's that look like the American flag, while their breathing plays the Star Spangled Banner! I'm sorry, but I have a problem with all the rest of you, as the owner of all the oxygen, it's my right!
The human animal the dumb sort, believing it superior in any way as it dies, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, that's everyone my friend, make no mistakes! Or in other words, "the shame in being able to see!"

[Kayla]

i asked a christian fundamentalist print shop owner if she would print posters for a big gay orgy

she laughed and asked if i were going to host one - i said no, just a theoretical question

yes she would

however, she would not do it for satanists or neonazis