Quote from: AnthrobotWould you agree that fining a religious bigot because they won't allow a gay couple to either enter, or sleep together, in their hotel is a good thing? Or do you think it is a step too far by the State, which invades the right of the landowner to do as he pleases?

I think that the bigot should be fined.

I think the bigot should be tied to one of his beds in the middle of a circle jerk. Make the punishment fit the crime.

Quote from: AnthrobotDiscrimination by religious hardliners is a despicable thing and should be discouraged.

Opinion presented as fact.  Who says it should be discouraged?  You may feel it should be discouraged, and are welcome to do so by picketing, writing angry letters to the company, the newspaper, and anyone who will listen, by boycotting.  But you are not justified in using government force to enforce your opinion.  

Quote from: AnthrobotIf the British government allow gay or lesbian folk to take legal action against religious bigots who refuse to accomodate them in their hotels ( a hotel that is supposed to be for the purpose of accomodating people, not kicking them out with a " My God says you're evil, you sodomiser!")then I for one applaud that bit of "state interference".

A hotel is private property (assuming it is owned by a private individual or company and not government-run). It's purpose is whatever the owner-not you-decides it is.

Quote from: AnthrobotIn case you hadn't noticed we all live in a society.

Feh, reminds me of George Costanza. "People! We're living in a society!"  Usually code for "You're not giving me my way."  Society is an artificial construct.  Society is nothing but a large group of individuals?  How can something be good for society if it is harmful to the rights of individuals?

Quote from: AnthrobotIt is all well and good for freedom of speech, to let folks espouse religious nastiness, but when they start discriminating against a person because of their sexual preferences then that is the start of something sinister that may spread.

This next part is so absurd I don't know where to begin.  I'll just take it in order.

Quote from: AnthrobotHow do you feel about the discrimination of Jews in Germany before the immediate rise of the Nazi party?

I think blanket discrimination based on race/religion/sex, etc is cruel and ignorant.  I also think two men having sex is gross and that wearing fur is murder.  I don't have the right to tell someone not to do any of those things because no one is being harmed.  I do have the right to tell them that they may come onto my property on the condition that they do not do those things.

Quote from: AnthrobotSome hotel manager says " Juden du bist verboten" and kicks him out of his hotel. It goes unchallenged by the libertarian, with his "leave folks to their private bigotry" philosophy, and suddenly Germany is jack boot central!

What a ridiculous leap of logic.  So tyranny and dictatorship result from giving people too much freedom and protection of their property rights?  I've got news for you, it usually works the other way,  Government takes action against and restricts the freedom of a fringe group no one likes or cares about, which sets the precedent for further infringements that affects more people in ways no one expected.  

Private discrimination is not the same as government-mandated discrimination against and oppression of a portion of its citizenry it has a duty to protect.

Try and stay with me here:

-Government oppressing part of the population based on biological or non-harmful lifestyle choices-BAD, restricting freedom
-Individuals free to associate (or not) with each other in a way that they think will bring them the most benefit and/or enjoyment-GOOD, protecting freedom

Quote from: AnthrobotIf governments have the responsibility to protect people, then they have the right to nip any religious bigotry in the bud.

That's faulty logic. One has nothing to do with the other.  Bigotry does not automatically lead to harm. It can be a factor, just like pornography and violent movies can be a factor leading to violent behavior.  But it isn't automatic than one leads to the other. Government has a duty to act against and protect people from harm, but until there is harm (or threat of harm) it has no legitimate excuse for interfering with the actions and interactions between its citizens.

Quote from: AnthrobotIt starts with discrimination of gays, or women not wearing a full headscarf, and ends with the world trade center bombings.

Allowing people to decide who may use their property and not forcing them to associate with people they don't want to leads to mass killings at the hands of terrorists?  Good grief!

I'm sure some internet debate law should be invoked here, maybe someone who knows them better than me can say which one.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonDoes a particular group (such as society as a whole) have the right to decide that certain behaviour is damaging to that group and should not be tolerated among members of that group?

Yes.  And denying others the use of your property does not damage anyone.  Please demonstrate how refusing service to someone or deciding not to associate with them can cause objective, quantifiable damage.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIn a democracy it would be both legitimate and proper.  That's what democracy means and it's the reason we have constitutions and bills/conventions of rights to slow down the process until we (as a society) are absolutely positive that a major change like that would be a good idea

So a democracy can do anything it wants as long as it gets a majority of voters behind it?  That's called tyranny of the majority.  

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOf course.  That power cuts both ways

At least you're consistent.

Quote from: ImperatorI think that the bigot should be fined.

Should a homosexual who refuses to hire or rent to a bigot also be fined?

He (the homosexual) should be given an award.

Quote from: TechnomancerYes.  And denying others the use of your property does not damage anyone.  Please demonstrate how refusing service to someone or deciding not to associate with them can cause objective, quantifiable damage.

If one group prevents another from fully participating in society then society as a whole suffers.  For example: if a person with the potential to become a brilliant doctor is stopped from training because they're black or a woman then society loses a brilliant doctor.  Should, therefore, society have the moral duty to pass laws to prevent that from happening?

Quote from: TechnomancerSo a democracy can do anything it wants as long as it gets a majority of voters behind it?

Well yes - I thought that would be self-evident.  If enough people get their shit together they can even overthrow that state and stick a dicator or theocracy in charge

Quote from: TechnomancerThat’s called tyranny of the majority.

And it's why modern constitutional democracies have checks and balances in place to limit the damage that the "tyranny of the majority" can cause

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIf one group prevents another from fully participating in society then society as a whole suffers.

Society doesn't suffer, individuals suffer.  You are advocating the use of government force to make sure certain individuals whose beliefs you do not agree with suffer.  I would argue that giving government that power causes "society" to suffer more than allowing people to freely choose who they will associate with.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonFor example: if a person with the potential to become a brilliant doctor is stopped from training because they're black or a woman then society loses a brilliant doctor.  Should, therefore, society have the moral duty to pass laws to prevent that from happening?

A hypothetical what-if like that is no basis for laws.  I could come up with a dozen hypothetical reasons why helping out your unfortunate black woman would turn out badly for every reason you give why she should be helped.

Society cannot lose something it didn't have in the first place. And the fact that she did have the potential to become a doctor does not create an obligation on my part or anyone else's to help her become one.

Quote from: TechnomancerSociety doesn't suffer, individuals suffer.

Society is a collection of individuals - when individuals suffer, society suffers

Quote from: TechnomancerYou are advocating the use of government force to make sure certain individuals whose beliefs you do not agree with suffer.  I would argue that giving government that power causes "society" to suffer more than allowing people to freely choose who they will associate with.

One of the major models of ethics (utilitarianism) is about the balancing of suffering and happiness between individuals.  That's what law is about

Quote from: TechnomancerA hypothetical what-if like that is no basis for laws.

Not hypothetical.  It used to happen - a lot

Quote from: TechnomancerSociety cannot lose something it didn't have in the first place.

It had this persons potential.  It lost it

Quote from: TechnomancerAnd the fact that she did have the potential to become a doctor does not create an obligation on my part or anyone else's to help her become one.

No, but neither you or anyone else have the right to stop her, if she truely has that potential

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAnd it's why modern constitutional democracies have checks and balances in place to limit the damage that the "tyranny of the majority" can cause

You're missing a big part of the modern constitutional democracy and why those founding fathers were so fucking brilliant.

You see, we do have rights, as you mention, spelled out in our Constitution.  But nowhere in that document does it make it illegal, or a violation of someone's rights, to discriminate based on sexual preference/practice.

Now, should it be in that document?  Let's assume you and I agree that it should be. Well, lo and behold, there's a process for making that happen.  It's called an Amendment. There's a whole bunch of them right there at the end of it - go look, I promise they're there.

And that's really how this system works.  It's why this argument of Majority rule is kinda bogus.  You can't have 51% of the population decide it's OK to discriminate against blacks or jews or whites or what have you.  Why?  Because some things are fundamental rights.  They are so important that no mater what anyone tries to do, you can't violate them.  So far, Sexual preference/practice is not among them.

As long as that's the case (here in America), people can make all the rules they want. Now states can pop in and say according to their constitutions it's not right, but that's a different issues (actually the same issue, but on the state level).

I realize that I did not express what I was getting at right after I hit the submit button.

See, the American Constitution is not a set of rules that govern every aspect of legal life in America.  Beyond the specifics of setting up the methods of electing and sitting a government, it's a set of guidelines, or principles.  It's meant to be a boundry beyond which neither the government, nor the people, will go beyond.

Anything else is left to the States and the People.

So, in America, it's perfectly legal to tell someone they can't come into your place of business because they aren't wearing a tie.  It's your business, you get to say.  The Constitution is silent on this matter.  If your State or Local government has no rule barring you from discriminating based on tie/no-tie, your gold.  What the Constitution does say is that regardless of what your State or Local governments say, you cannot do certain things (EDIT: for example, turn away a black patron without a tie, but let in a white patron not wearing a tie).  And in absence of any other authority, the same holds.

If I can discriminate using something as silly as a tie, how come I can't be bigoted based on who you sleep with? The Constitution is silent on this matter.  If your State/Local governments are silent, you're good to go.

None of this is to say it's morally right.  The question is whether you are legally responsible to act in a certain way. I'm convinced what people are mad about is how homosexual rights are being pursued, not with the right/wrong of it. Couple that with the fact that one fundamental right, freedom of religious expression, and one potential fundamental right, sexual preference/practice, are coming into conflict, and you get all sorts of bad rhetoric from both sides.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonNo, but neither you or anyone else have the right to stop her, if she truely has that potential

So if I own a medical school, I am required to let her in, even if I don't want to, because of her potential?  Now that's a branch of law I'd love to see in more detail.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOne of the major models of ethics (utilitarianism) is about the balancing of suffering and happiness between individuals.  That's what law is about

I was under the impression that Utilitarianism was about maximizing utility - which can be defined subjectively.

EDIT: In fact, the idea of utilitarianism, IIRC, is to maximize happiness,yes? How much happiness is being added if you allow the homosexual into church versus if you don't?  It's a terrible way to judge some things, no?  Who has a greater claim on happiness, the homosexual to his/her sexual preference or the pious to his religious practice?

Quote from: James J SkachSo if I own a medical school, I am required to let her in, even if I don't want to, because of her potential?  Now that's a branch of law I'd love to see in more detail.

Of course you don't have to let her in, you just can't deny her access because she's black or female. Find another excuse, close the loophole, and continue with business. This is America, right? Isn't that how these things work?

By the way, that law for sexual preference discrimination will happen eventually. Smart businesses (that aren't in a strongly conservative location) get the free publicity of doing it before they're forced to.

Quote from: James McMurrayOf course you don't have to let her in, you just can't deny her access because she's black or female. Find another excuse, close the loophole, and continue with business. This is America, right? Isn't that how these things work?

Yeah, you see that stuff going down in Michigan? They passed a proposition to remove gender and race as any part of entrance criteria for the universities (which is funny if you think about it), but they won't take it off the application - which will, of course, lead to exactly what you're suggesting.

Quote from: James McMurrayBy the way, that law for sexual preference discrimination will happen eventually. Smart businesses (that aren't in a strongly conservative location) get the free publicity of doing it before they're forced to.

I suspect you're right - the law will be the law of the land, eventually.  I'd just like to see it done right.  When you don't, you actually make things worse. I just listened to an NPR story about places doing the voluntary non-smoking thing ahead of the laws for that very reason.  It's fine with me not because I don't smoke (a recently quitter, for now), but because it's their choice.  And that's the whole point.  Now, let the market decide.