Quote from: TechnomancerOpinion 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.  

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.

.

So you find descrimination against gays by religious bigots a good thing? I'm not using the government to enforce MY opinion. In this case the British government are contemplating this law, which I happen to agree with. Big difference.
I always thought that hotels were there to give folks temporary accomodation, silly me.Because someone is well off enough to own a hotel or some land, then they get the right to be like some feudal baron, ejecting someone that they have an irrational hatred against.Do folks who don't own hotels or land have a say in this Libertarian Utopia of yours or is it just landed white straight folks?

Quote from: TechnomancerFeh, 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?

Just because my words remind you of someone else's doesn't mean that I share their opinions.Don't set up a straw dog argument please, its a cheap tactic.
You accuse me of faulty logic.Let me return the compliment.By your criteria if it harms society to harm the rights of individuals then some highly dangerous persons should be free to walk the streets.

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

 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.

Your logic fails totally here. Wether mandated by the government or privately by yourself, it has the exact same effect-descrimination against gays.

Quote from: TechnomancerWhat 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.
 

No I never wrote that.Tyranny and dictatorship come from seeds of irrational descrimination. Some religious bigots are guilty of horrendous crimes and should be part of the governments "watched list". If no one likes or cares about the group, so what? They may still be a threat.
Private descrimination is only different from government descrimination by its scale. But it has the same effect, does it not? Or did your logic circuits melt down when you thought of two grown men having consensual anal sex?

Quote from: TechnomancerTry and stay with me here: (I hope that jimknob has a go at you for this little insult:D )

-Government protecting part of the population based on biological or non-harmful lifestyle choices-BAD, restricting freedom
-Individuals free to descriminate (or not) with each other in a way that they think will bring them (THEM, not everyone else as well?) the most benefit (to them)and/or enjoyment-GOOD, protecting freedom to descriminate irrationally.

 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.  

Faulty logic eh?
Bigotry does not automatically lead to harm.
I agree with you on that,but then again sometimes it does. But governments that can't issue some kind of pre emptive anti descriminatory legislature, are failing to protect the liberty of descriminated folks.
If governments have to wait for harm to be done before they step in, then they cannot protect individuals,as they've already been harmed. It makes a mockery of what you said about it having a DUTY to protect people from harm.
In the real world even notice of a threat cannot guarantee that the government can protect someone. So I would put it to you that SOME pre emptive legislature can be a good thing. You appear to see it as the beginning of a slippery slope to less freedom, or even tyranny by the "State".

Quote from: TechnomancerAllowing 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.

You put your point across excellently.Put like that you'd think that we weren't talking about a group of religious hardline bigots that have an irrational fear of two men having consensual anal sex.
If you think that such religious bigotry doesn't sometimes lead to terrorism, then you aren't living in our world. Take a look at the news archives from the past few years willya?

As for invoking internet laws....Don't wimp out on me now! I find your ideas stimulating to think about. We're only chatting for fuck's sake.

Quote from: Anthrobotirrational descrimination

Can you tell methe difference between rational and irrational discrimination?

Is the former when it's your bigotry (against, say, religious people who have an opinion different than yours), and the latter when it's someone else's?

Quote from: AnthrobotSo you find descrimination against gays by religious bigots a good thing?

No, it offends me, and I am free to choose not to patronize a business or attend a church that uses discriminatory practices.  If enough people find discrimination offensive, the business will not make money and will either change their policy or go out of business.

Quote from: AnthrobotBecause someone is well off enough to own a hotel or some land, then they get the right to be like some feudal baron, ejecting someone that they have an irrational hatred against.Do folks who don't own hotels or land have a say in this Libertarian Utopia of yours or is it just landed white straight folks?

Yes, they can throw someone off or prevent someone from coming onto their property (or property they are legally renting or occupying) just like the rich guys.

Quote from: AnthrobotYou accuse me of faulty logic.Let me return the compliment.By your criteria if it harms society to harm the rights of individuals then murderers should be free to walk the streets.

Murderers cause harm to others.  Bigotry by itself does not. It is proper for the government to punish the former and not the latter.

Quote from: AnthrobotYour logic fails totally here. Wether mandated by the government or privately by yourself, it has the exact same effect-descrimination against gays.

No, as I have explained, government, which gets its power from the people it governs, has a responsibility to treat all of those people equally, whereas I, as a private citizen, do not possess any such obligation.  If I do, please explain where it comes from, other than your own sense of niceness.

Quote from: AnthrobotNo I never wrote that.Tyranny and dictatorship come from seeds of irrational descrimination. Some religious bigots are guilty of horrendous crimes and should be part of the governments "watched list". If no one likes or cares about the group, so what? They may still be a threat.

If some individual bigots are guilty of such crimes they should either be in jail or watched, sure. What’s your point? That because some bigots commit crimes we have a right to punish or restrict the behavior of all of them?  Substitute the word “bigots” for “Muslims” or “blacks” and see if you still feel the same.

Quote from: AnthrobotPrivate descrimination is only different from government descrimination by its scale. But it has the same effect, does it not?

No, it doesn’t. The effect of private discrimination is that someone is denied the use of property or services that belong to someone else, to which they did not have a right to in the first place.  The owner gets to decide who gets to use it, and under what conditions.  The effect of public institutionalized discrimination is that the government, which gets its power from the people it governs and has a duty to protect them, is doing the opposite.

Quote from: AnthrobotFaulty logic eh?
Bigotry does not automatically lead to harm.
I agree with you on that,but then again sometimes it does. But governments that can't issue anti descriminatory legislature are failing to protect the liberty of descriminated folks.
If governments have to wait for harm to be done before they step in, then they cannot protect individuals,as they've already been harmed. It makes a mockery of what you said about it having a DUTY to protect people from harm.
In the real world even notice of a threat cannot guarantee that the government can protect someone. So I would put it to you that SOME pre emptive legislature can be a good thing. You appear to see it as the beginning of a slippery slope to less freedom, or even tyranny by the "State".

Government doesn’t have to wait for harm to occur, that’s why I made a point to mention the threat of harm was enough grounds for government involvement.  Being an ass to someone is not the same as causing them harm, and part of living in a free society is that other people can be rude to you if they want to, and they don’t have to explain themselves.

Quote from: AnthrobotYou put your point across excellently.Put like that you'd think that we weren't talking about a group of religious hardline bigots that have an irrational fear of two men having consensual anal sex.
If you think that such religious bigotry doesn't sometimes lead to terrorism, then you aren't living in our world. Take a look at the news archives from the past few years willya?.

It can, it doesn’t have to.  To use a previous example, this is similar to the argument the censors use to try and ban violence in video games.  Some people who play violent video games commit violent acts. Does that mean violent video games should be banned? Even though many, many more people who play these games never hurt anyone?

Do you feel like we keep saying the same things over and over.  Because I do.  I feel I’ve made my point, so I’m bowing out, although I will give you the courtesy of reading any further response you make (so you’ve got one more chance to convince me I’m wrong ).  

I will say that I understand your motives for wanting anti-discrimination laws in place, they are noble and do you credit.  I share your feelings about bigotry, but I feel that the methods you espouse will prove to cause more harm than good in the long run.

In other words, I think your heart is in the right place but your methods are wrong.

Quote from: TechnomancerFirst of all, for the record, it's not MY bigotry.  I despise ignorant bigoted fuckwits and frequently exercise my right to not associate with them.

if you despise "ignorant bigoted fuckwits" why are you defending them?:confused:

He's not, he's defending their right to be ignorant bigoted fuckwits. I disagree wholeheartedly, but can see where he's coming from.

Of the three, which do you think is the problem?  I mean, I assume you think it's OK to discriminate if someone is ignorant (you can't get into Harvard cause you aren't smart enough) or is a fuckwit (you can't come in my bar because you're loud and obnoxious). So it's only if they are bigoted?

I mean, I assume we'd like to stop the other behaviors, right? Let's make a law that says you can't discriminate if someone is a fuckwit. People are free to be fuckwits and you have to let them in your church/business/etc. Or how about ignorance.  I mean, we discriminate all the time based on ignorance.  But from now on, you can't refuse to hire someone because they are ignorant. I know in some businesses (and certainly in politics) we'd hardly know the difference.

Quote from: James McMurrayHe (the homosexual) should be given an award.

This comment exactly sums up what is wrong with the arguements against Technomancer... that we can and should fine the bigot for his discrimanatory practices, but reward people (any people) for discriminating against the bigot.

The difficulty with enshrining certain rights and priviledges to a certain class of people is that the the protected class becomes 'more equal' than unprotected classes, this only fuels the bigotry and hatred in the long run.  Look to the debates over  'quotas' in hiring or education.  While they served a purpose in getting people into jobs and schools, making them free, they also created enormous resentment from those who were not protected by quotas who felt that they were being discriminated against.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, Technomancer has a valid point. The businessman or landowner has the right to use his property as he sees fit. From a practical standpoint however, this breaks down horribly when faced with instituitionalized prejudice, as we saw in the south prior to civil rights movement.  While government could, theoretically, lead the way: government jobs being open to anyone, schools, as funded by the government in whole or in part required to be 'equal'... there simply is no way we could wait long enough, nor keep such widespread discrimination out of such places, to make it work.  Thus, the rights of the landowner must be abridged to protect the rights of the minority citizens. It is a legal connundrum that has been, and is still being, dealt with by far greater men than we.

Who gives a shit about theory? No matter how much theory a bigot has behind him, he's still just a bigot. And as such, he is less equal, at least to me.

Note, I'm not saying I agree with quotas and affirmative action programs that gaurantee things to one group that another can't have. I just like rewarding people who fight the good fight against people I revile. If you bitch slap the bad behavior and give cookies for the good, eventually good prevails.

Quote from: James McMurrayWho gives a shit about theory? No matter how much theory a bigot has behind him, he's still just a bigot. And as such, he is less equal, at least to me.

Is the Constitution theory?  I mean, what you're saying is in direct conflict with that document, specifically in this case. Because the bigot to whom you are referring is basing his beliefs (however wrong-headed they might be) on his religion.  And I quote:

Quote from: Bill of Rights, Amednment 1Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

For the government to force a religion to accept homosexuality is a violation of the First Amendment, plain and simple. It's not theory, it's reality.

As an interesting side note, it's telling that the first thing in the First Amendment, before speech or assembly, or even petitioning the government for redress, is religion.  That should tell you how important it was to those brilliant people who wrote the most amazing documents human history has produced.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I have no problem with you disliking bigots or, in your personal business, rewarding those with whom you agree and bitch slapping those with whom you disagree.  That is, after all, the American way.

Quote from: James McMurrayWho gives a shit about theory? No matter how much theory a bigot has behind him, he's still just a bigot. And as such, he is less equal, at least to me.

Note, I'm not saying I agree with quotas and affirmative action programs that gaurantee things to one group that another can't have. I just like rewarding people who fight the good fight against people I revile. If you bitch slap the bad behavior and give cookies for the good, eventually good prevails.

Good prevails? We're in a comic book now?  I could point out our metaphorical neighbor who acted out that very behavior in microcosm in the form of RPG.net. They slapped down anyone with an unpopular 'bad' belief and rewarded people who acted just like bigots against the 'bad people'...

We end up with a strange nannystate coupled with thought police, where dangerous, disliked thought and behavior is punished, and only the Groupthink prevails... only, as we can see from some of the expats over here, eventually Groupthink gets narrower and narrower until even the biggest fan is an outsider, no matter how like the abusive spouse they act... it was their own fault, etc.  

'But they are just Bigots'... you say. Bully for you, but you sound a lot like the bigots when they say 'but they are just...'.  Reducing anyone to 'less than human' is...

Well, you get the picture. Wether you want to understand it is up to you.