4 ms·

The situation is more nuanced than the surface outrage I've been seeing. Do you support freedom of expression? Do you think bigots should be allowed to say st

by MCRed 12y ago

The situation is more nuanced than the surface outrage I've been seeing. Do you support freedom of expression? Do you think bigots should be allowed to say stupid things? Well, freedom of association is also a right- its the right that underpins gay marriage and the right that allows discrimination. I'm bisexual, and I'm not a bigot. I don't discriminate against people based on silly things like race, ethnicity, etc, --- hell I don't even discriminate on the gender of someone, when choosing romantic partners, how many of you can say that?!! -- but I do believe that discrimination is really just a form of freedom of association. It's stupid and counter productive to be a bigot, but it's still a basic right-- just as I don't have a right to force you to marry me after one date simply because I think we're a good match, while you may not be interested in marrying me because of my gender (or my beard.) Literally, straight people not sleeping with members of the same gender is a form of "discrimination" based on sex! I don't like governments attempts at social engineering, but the basis of gay marriage is that we have the right to associate (eg: get married to) whomever we want. A right we have, by the way, without needing any government permission! By that very same right, I have the right to exclude christians from my place of business (or just bigots.) It's a basic human right who you associate with. There's an argument for a limitation on this right based on extreme or extenuating circumstances... and I'm not going to argue against that, in the same way that yelling fire in a crowded theater is debatably a limitation on free speech. The problem here is, christians are allowed to discriminate against gays, but gays are not allowed to discriminate against christians-- because the christians are a protected class (as are all other religions.) If we were a society that really protected rights, we would recognize that the freedom of association is fundamental, and yes, it has the downside of allowing bigots to be idiots, just as the right of free speech is fundamental and has the downside of allowing bigots to say stupid things.

adevine 12y ago
You are leaving out the very important fact that we're talking about commerce here, not just general freedom of association. The law has always made substantial demands on people engaging in commerce that often override other freedoms. I'm pretty sure the KKK doesn't let black people in, and that's legal, but that doesn't mean the KKK can open up a whites-only hotel.
- MCRed 12y ago
  I'm not leaving that out at all. I addressed it with the fire-in-a-crowded theater analogy. But the fact that commerce is involved doesn't magically eliminate the right. Commerce only creates a few edge cases, but is effectively irrelevant (from a rights and logic point of view.) The fact that government has used the existence of commerce to violate people's rights (and it has done this extensively- you are correct) shows that government is not interested in protecting people's rights as much as it is in benefiting politicians and itself. It doesn't change the nature of human rights. Further, understand that this law does NOT give religious people the right to open a "straights only" hotel. They always had that right, and the law doesn't change it. Only certainly classes are protected at a federal and state level. Religions are, sexualities aren't. This law doesn't change that.
  - DonHopkins 12y ago
    People patronize commercial establishments a lot more often than crowded theaters burn down.
tomp 12y ago
> Literally, straight people not sleeping with members of the same gender is a form of "discrimination" based on sex! I disagree. I'm straight, but I'm not discriminating based on sex, I'm discriminating based based on attractiveness. Or actually, my body is - I don't get an erection for ugly women and men - it's just that, so far, all men I've seen were ugly.

by MCRed 12y ago

adevine 12y ago

You are leaving out the very important fact that we're talking about commerce here, not just general freedom of association. The law has always made substantial demands on people engaging in commerce that often override other freedoms. I'm pretty sure the KKK doesn't let black people in, and that's legal, but that doesn't mean the KKK can open up a whites-only hotel.

MCRed 12y ago
I'm not leaving that out at all. I addressed it with the fire-in-a-crowded theater analogy. But the fact that commerce is involved doesn't magically eliminate the right. Commerce only creates a few edge cases, but is effectively irrelevant (from a rights and logic point of view.) The fact that government has used the existence of commerce to violate people's rights (and it has done this extensively- you are correct) shows that government is not interested in protecting people's rights as much as it is in benefiting politicians and itself. It doesn't change the nature of human rights. Further, understand that this law does NOT give religious people the right to open a "straights only" hotel. They always had that right, and the law doesn't change it. Only certainly classes are protected at a federal and state level. Religions are, sexualities aren't. This law doesn't change that.
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  People patronize commercial establishments a lot more often than crowded theaters burn down.

tomp 12y ago

> Literally, straight people not sleeping with members of the same gender is a form of "discrimination" based on sex! I disagree. I'm straight, but I'm not discriminating based on sex, I'm discriminating based based on attractiveness. Or actually, my body is - I don't get an erection for ugly women and men - it's just that, so far, all men I've seen were ugly.