Quote from: hgjsThey ALREADY have the right to be intolerant bigots.  There's no law in the world against having hateful and prejudiced opinions.  What they want to retain is the right to refuse service to people on the basis of said bigotry.

You don't come from Blighty I take it? Religious bigotry doesn't have the backing of being enshrined in a bill of rights in Britain, yet.
Because there are laws over here against hateful opinions that incite violence.The BNP almost ran afoul of them, recently. Oh, and by the way, "rights" really are metaphysical abstractions.No one really has a RIGHT to do anything, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Quote from: TechnomancerI'm all for everyone having the same rights.BUT if I'm running a business it belongs to me, it's my property, you have no right to the product or service I am providing if I choose not to give it to you.  Just like if a black person or homosexual didn't want to do business with me because I was white and straight, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 Racial segregation is something you approve of ?

Quote from: Serious PaulIs that what freedom is? Huh.

Sorry, did I not express that clearly enough?

I know language is terribly imprecise but I thought you had some ability to comprehend what I wrote.

Want to parse it down then? Freedom means the ability to attempt any action you want, any action at all, unconstrained by anything other than your own desire to do or not do it. You have the freedom to leap off a cliff and fly to another cliff if you like. Gravity has the freedom to squash you like a bug because you don't have wings.

Anything else is merely a cultures individual definition of freedom, rather than actual freedom.   Prior to the civil war the US considered itself a free country, despite the fact that a very significant portion of it's population was anything BUT free. After the Civil War they still thought they were a free country despite the fact that they weren't equal.  Now everyone is equal but less free than ever before, yet... yet we still call ourselves the land of the free.  Some say it daily.

Now, you could very well argue that we are still free. The slave was free to rise up and kill the slave holder, the slave holder was free to whip him to death for daring to think about it.   But we've already gone into ludicrious speed, haven't we.

Quote from: SpikeSorry, did I not express that clearly enough?

No your idea of what freedom is quite clear. That I don't concur is also quite clear. But that has little to do with the topic at hand.

Quote from: TechnomancerI'm all for everyone having the same rights.  But if I'm running a business it belongs to me, it's my property, you have no right to the product or service I am providing if I choose not to give it to you.  Just like if a black person or homosexual didn't want to do business with me because I was white and straight, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I'm sure that you are familiar with the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins? In other words where your exercise of your freedoms impacts on my freedoms there is a conflict.  That conflict is best resolved as a negociation between individuals, but, where this is not possible the wider society (as manifest in it's laws and justice system) needs to intervene

For example, in the US, the Whites Only hospitals, benches and drinking fountains (and in the UK, the boarding houses that wouldn't admit Blacks and Irish) were preventing a minority group from exercising their freedom to fully participate in society.  I firmly believe (and you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise) that the laws that banned them were one of the great achievements of the last century for both our societies

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm sure that you are familiar with the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins? In other words where your exercise of your freedoms impacts on my freedoms there is a conflict.

That might have something to do with this discussion if I was saying it was ok to hurt people of a different race, sexuality, gender, etc. As it is, I was arguing for the right to associate or not associate with anyone you want and to do what you want with your own property as long as you're not hurting anyone else or messing with their stuff.  Your argument has fuck all to do with that.

Actually I take that back.  Your argument supports my position more than your own.  As in your "right" to curl up and go to sleep ends where my bed begins. Or your "right" to go to work ends where my factory begins.  I see no basis for an obligation for me to provide you with either of those things provided we haven't previously entered into a legal agreement.  Don't you have the right to choose not to stay in my hotel or not to accept a job offer from me, for whatever reason?  Are you allowed to make that decision because you don't like my race, sexuality, etc?  So why should the freedom of association only exist one-way?

QuoteFor example, in the US, the Whites Only hospitals, benches and drinking fountains (and in the UK, the boarding houses that wouldn't admit Blacks and Irish) were preventing a minority group from exercising their freedom to fully participate in society.

What the fuck does that even mean, the freedom to fully participate in society?  

I agree that government/public institutions and services have no business discriminating, which would toss out whites-only benches and water fountains (unless they were privately owned).  The government's obligation to all races, creeds, etc, is to protect their life and property equally.

Quote from: AnthrobotRacial segregation is something you approve of ?

Not if it is government-mandated or -controlled.  The government has an obligation to treat everyone equally.  Private citizens, and private businesses, on the other hand, do not.

Quote from: AnthrobotNo one really has a RIGHT to do anything, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The question is not whether I have a right to do something.  The question is where do you get the power to tell me I can't do something, or even worse, that I have to do something?  If I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.

Quote from: TechnomancerNot if it is government-mandated or -controlled.  The government has an obligation to treat everyone equally.  Private citizens, and private businesses, on the other hand, do not.
The question is not whether I have a right to do something.  The question is where do you get the power to tell me I can't do something, or even worse, that I have to do something?  If I'm not hurting you or messing with your stuff, you have fuck all to say about what I do.

BUT what about when your bigotry is hurting someone? What then? Because, as sure as hell, that bigotry is going to come out some place public and maybe it will lead to someone getting hurt?

Quote from: TechnomancerOr maybe they have the crazy idea that they should be able to decide who they let onto their own property and who they associate with.  

You know, freedom?

What? Like the freedom to associate with known terrorists who want to make bombs in your basement?
Freedom  has to be put into the perspective of harm to people at large. It is a concept that does not live in a vacuum as a be all and end all. By that I mean that adhering to the concept of being free without considering the outcome of some of your actions sounds more like selfishness. A person's freedom cannot come at the expense of disregarding other peoples' safety.

Quote from: TechnomancerSure, they taught me it's not nice. But it's not the government's job to make people be nice, the government's job is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.  Forcing a person to associate with someone they don't want to is a deprivation of their liberty.
Do you also think a gay rights organization should be forced to do business with or hire an ultraconservative anti-gay rights bigot?
I'm all for everyone having the same rights.  But if I'm running a business it belongs to me, it's my property, you have no right to the product or service I am providing if I choose not to give it to you.  Just like if a black person or homosexual didn't want to do business with me because I was white and straight, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

If the governments job is protecting life, liberty and the American...no, sorry er...property wouldn't it be in everyone's interest to challenge irrational bigotry? Less bigotry means less violence.Less violence means a bit less money spent on policing and a better safer society.
A lot of bigots have never even had a conversation with the object of their hate.Perhaps a meeting of extreme opposites (maybe with some kind of chaperone to stop physical violence) would allow the two groups to actually see each other as human beings worthy of respect? Maybe some parochial minds should be exposed to the outside world?
Your last paragraph seems to say that you would not have the cojones to challenge any bigotry you came up against.I'd call you cowardly in that respect, but in your country folks are often packing a gun (I'm assuming that you are American)and a conversation can quickly turn into a firefight.Which isn't good for the neighbourhood!

Quote from: AnthrobotBUT what about when your bigotry is hurting someone? What then? Because, as sure as hell, that bigotry is going to come out some place public and maybe it will lead to someone getting hurt?

First 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.

Perhaps "hurt" was not the best choice of words.  I used it because it sounds better conversationally, rather than something dry sounding like "coercion" or "the initiation of force or fraud".  The idea is that people in a free society should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of anyone else to do the same (your "right to swing my fist" principle).  Only when someone initiates the use of force against you or tries to take or damage your property (either physically or through fraud) should the government step in.

Hurting someone's feelings does not qualify.  No force is being used against them.  It is merely the expression of an opinion, albeit one that is ignorant and short-sighted. I can try to change that person's mind and show them that bigotry is counter-productive, but I can't force them to change their mind.

Also, NOT providing someone with something is not the same as hurting them.  They have no right to anything that belongs to me, the fact that they need something does not create an obligation for me to provide it.  They can ask me or try to make a deal with me, but it's up to me if I want to accept.
 

Quote from: AnthrobotIf the governments job is protecting life, liberty and the American...no, sorry er...property wouldn't it be in everyone's interest to challenge irrational bigotry? Less bigotry means less violence.Less violence means a bit less money spent on policing and a better safer society.

If it's such a good idea, why can't you convince people to do it voluntarily? Why do you need to pass laws?

QuoteA lot of bigots have never even had a conversation with the object of their hate.Perhaps a meeting of extreme opposites (maybe with some kind of chaperone to stop physical violence) would allow the two groups to actually see each other as human beings worthy of respect? Maybe some parochial minds should be exposed to the outside world?

And do you think passing laws is going to make bigot like the people they previously discriminated against?  Forcing someone to rent a room to someone they don't like is going to make them see that person as a human being?

QuoteYour last paragraph seems to say that you would not have the cojones to challenge any bigotry you came up against.I'd call you cowardly in that respect, but in your country folks are often packing a gun (I'm assuming that you are American)and a conversation can quickly turn into a firefight.Which isn't good for the neighbourhood!

A coward? How so? I respect the right of others to associate or not associate with anyone they choose.  Just as I choose not to associate with racist/homophobic/misogynistic fuckwits.

(And for the record, the American states with the highest percentage of legal gun ownership also have the lowest violent crime rates.)

Quote from: TechnomancerPerhaps "hurt" was not the best choice of words.  I used it because it sounds better conversationally, rather than something dry sounding like "coercion" or "the initiation of force or fraud".  The idea is that people in a free society should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of anyone else to do the same (your "right to swing my fist" principle).  Only when someone initiates the use of force against you or tries to take or damage your property (either physically or through fraud) should the government step in.
Hurting someone's feelings does not qualify.  No force is being used against them.  It is merely the expression of an opinion, albeit one that is ignorant and short-sighted. I can try to change that person's mind and show them that bigotry is counter-productive, but I can't force them to change their mind.
Also, NOT providing someone with something is not the same as hurting them.  They have no right to anything that belongs to me, the fact that they need something does not create an obligation for me to provide it.  They can ask me or try to make a deal with me, but it's up to me if I want to accept.
 If it's such a good idea, why can't you convince people to do it voluntarily? Why do you need to pass laws?
 And do you think passing laws is going to make bigot like the people they previously discriminated against?  Forcing someone to rent a room to someone they don't like is going to make them see that person as a human being?
A coward? How so? I respect the right of others to associate or not associate with anyone they choose.  Just as I choose not to associate with racist/homophobic/misogynistic fuckwits.
(And for the record, the American states with the highest percentage of legal gun ownership also have the lowest violent crime rates.)

So it is okay to hurt someone's feelings but not their person.Got your drift.Governments pass laws so that stupid or bigotted folks have guidelines, that are clear information on whats wrong and whats right.Wether they follow those guidelines is up to the individual.
Any law fining bigots for their bigotry would not force them to house someone they despised. Instead they would get a fine for not doing so. This would hurt their feelings, which is okay by your criteria, and give them a martyr complex, no doubt.
As to increasing a bigots empathy for the people they despise. Well, er no it wouldn't. But it would show the bigot that their behaviour is no longer acceptable in modern society.

Quote from: A coward? How so? I respect the right of others to associate or not associate with anyone they choose.  Just as I choose not to associate with racist/homophobic/misogynistic fuckwits.

(And for the record, the American states with the highest percentage of legal gun ownership also have the lowest violent crime rates.)[/QUOTEYour laissez-faire attitude will not change anything for the better. All the more reason why the government should have laws against bigots.

As for gun ownership.I'll have to take your word about the crime rate. Over here in Britain guns are more of an aid rather than a deterrant to cime.

Quote from: AnthrobotSo it is okay to hurt someone's feelings but not their person.Got your drift.Governments pass laws so that stupid or bigotted folks have guidelines, that are clear information on whats wrong and whats right.Wether they follow those guidelines is up to the individual.
Any law fining bigots for their bigotry would not force them to house someone they despised. Instead they would get a fine for not doing so. This would hurt their feelings, which is okay by your criteria, and give them a martyr complex, no doubt.

A law against bigotry would not be appropriate. As I explained, the government's job is to keep people from using force or fraud. Since bigotry by itself is neither of these things, it would be inappropriate to pass laws against it.  In a free country at least.

Look at it from another perspective.  If you are a Jewish hotel owner, should you be forced to rent out your hotel for a pro-nazi convention that's in town?  What about for a Muslim convention whose members are advocating the destruction of the state of Israel?

QuoteAs to increasing a bigots empathy for the people they despise. Well, er no it wouldn't. But it would show the bigot that their behaviour is no longer acceptable in modern society.

How is it your place, or anyone else's, to tell someone what is acceptable to do with their own property, until it hits them in the face, to use your fist-swinging example again?

Wouldn't it be better to show them their behavior is not "acceptable" by refusing to patronize their business or associate with them.  Remember, you and I are free to treat them like assholes too.

Quote from: AnthrobotYou don't come from Blighty I take it? Religious bigotry doesn't have the backing of being enshrined in a bill of rights in Britain, yet.
Because there are laws over here against hateful opinions that incite violence.The BNP almost ran afoul of them, recently.

I am not, but I am passingly familiar with the recently passed laws you are talking about -- and they do NOT make it illegal to hold certain opinions.  They make it illegal to EXPRESS certain opinions.  Huge difference.

Quote from: AnthrobotOh, and by the way, "rights" really are metaphysical abstractions.No one really has a RIGHT to do anything, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

That's what I keep on saying, but then people keep on going on about "human dignity, crimes against humanity, blah blah blah."