Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Kansas House bill  - the right to refuse service to gay couples because of religious beliefs Kansas House bill  - the right to refuse service to gay couples because of religious beliefs

03-05-2014 , 06:49 PM
Ran into this little thing:

Quote:
OXFORD, Miss.–A third Mississippi city has passed a resolution in support of adding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to its diversity statement.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/...gbt-ordinance/

Googling the actual resolution is here: http://www.oxfordms.net/documents/bo...0140304-06.pdf

Presumably it is utterly toothless. But it an example of the kind of symbolism that can still be benefitial. We come together to discuss our shared values and affirm them in what appears to be only symbolic, but a symbolism to which there is some sort of power. It get's local media attention, it gets people thinking about the idea of including sexual orientation amongst the other measures which so many of us hold dear, and helps to build and strength that consensus that discriminating against LGBT is as wrong as discriminating based on race or religion or any other such thing.
Kansas House bill  - the right to refuse service to gay couples because of religious beliefs Quote
03-05-2014 , 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan
Quote:
7. While governments have the duty to treat everyone equally under the law, private individuals should be able to make their own decisions on whom to do business with and how—on religious or any other grounds. Gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work Southern Baptist celebrations, Jews shouldn’t be forced to work Nazi rallies, environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities, and pacifists shouldn’t be forced to work NRA conventions.
This is a great example of cherry picking one's examples to make your point seem nicer. One can affirm this principle or not. But the consequence of that principle is also examples like racists should be allowed to refuse blacks as customers, employees, etc. The examples we get however are things like jews being forced to work for nazi rallies....lol. Admittedly, it is a standard tactic to present examples that make your points seem nice and ignore those that don't. But this is a relatively huge glossing over the most obvious of examples that cast the point is much, much less appealing light.

Incidentally, this article is much closer to what I would think is the "standard" libertarian response (in contrast to my surprise in the way aaron interpreted the bill as an increase in government).
Kansas House bill  - the right to refuse service to gay couples because of religious beliefs Quote
03-05-2014 , 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
No time for aaron right now
Oops. I forgot about this and effectively left a monstrous post in the middle of a conversation left unanswered. Perhaps that's as good an excuse to move on as any?
Kansas House bill  - the right to refuse service to gay couples because of religious beliefs Quote
03-05-2014 , 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Oops. I forgot about this and effectively left a monstrous post in the middle of a conversation left unanswered. Perhaps that's as good an excuse to move on as any?
Only if you want to concede the entire argument...

Spoiler:
Was there anything in particular that you wanted to continue to pursue?
Kansas House bill  - the right to refuse service to gay couples because of religious beliefs Quote

      
m