4 ms·

>Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? Yes. Realize that it's a reactionary position to take, b

>Are you arguing that all currently protected classes (e.g. race, religion, sex) should be abolished? Yes. Realize that it's a reactionary position to take, but it just seems right. If someone wants to run their business with bigotry, so be it. I won't respect them, but I'd respect their "right" to do so. I realize that there counter argument is that I've never lived in a time in which such regulation was needed, I never experienced Jim Crow, etc - and of course today Jim Crow still exists, in a way, for homosexuals. But it just seems like another case of "two wrongs make a right." Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. There must be another way.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago
> Forcing others to adhere to our own moral preferences seems fundamentally and deeply flawed. I bet you're fine forcing others to adhere to your own moral preferences re: burglary, assault, rape, and murder.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  That a slippery slope can be drawn, doesn't mean it actually exists.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
A "better way?" Oh my. I bet you think there is a TechCrunch style "disruption" to be made here. :) Forcing others, particularly at the barrel of a gun, as libertarians are fond of saying is what laws are. Perhaps you believe we shouldn't force people away from murdering or robbing others? If restaurants poison the food of customers, the market will work it out? This straw man is no sillier than the idea that preventing discrimination is as reprehensible as the discrimination itself.