(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313613

Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.

This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.

Comments

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

You defend the right of a doctor to refuse treatment to a patient due
to their skin color or religion...

AND you have the nerve to talk about "having principles"?!?!?!?!?


You dont even see the dissonance do you?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's generally wrong to discriminate.

It's wrong to tell people who they should associate with.

There's no dissonance there. There's the way people should act, and the way governments should act.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Your grasp of American History -- it's not particularly strong
in this discussion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So you say. How do you figure?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Jim Crow Laws -- you are literally defending them.

One of the greatest post-Slavery "social evils" and you throw your
hat behind THAT horse?


and THEN in another thread you pretend you understand what it's like to be truly discriminated against???

Man, we're not even from the same planet you and I.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Jim Crow Laws -- you are literally defending them.

How so? I have no interest in the government requiring discrimination.

and THEN in another thread you pretend you understand what it's like to be truly discriminated against???

Clearly, you've shadowed me through all thirty years of my life, and thus know every experience I've had. My apologies for not deferring my life history to some random dude on the internet.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Jim Crow Laws -- you are literally defending them.'

I get the exact opposite out of what he said. Jim Crow violated the freedom of association.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Never in an explicitly racist sense. The laws were written to appear neutral, but only selectively enforced. Had they been strictly applied a significant number of poor whites who did vote would not have been allowed to do so, but they were despite not meeting requirements blacks denied votes or even the right to economically succeed without being strung from a tree and their corpse passed around on postcards as something to be celebrated.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I think a fair reading of equal protection would include equal protection, not merely in how laws are written, but also enforced. This, in addition to the mockery that was separate but equal is just two sides of the same un-equal protection.

Sorry, said I was dropping out of this thread, but I sometimes can't resist the temptation to add a thought or two.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

It's generally wrong to tell people what to do.
not always.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Of course. This is not one of those times.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Not big on "keeping the peace"?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Those who trade security for liberty, etc.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

What your doing (discriminating against blacks for example) may be wrong, but it is more wrong for us to compel you (force you to serve all races) to do right.

A kid could get away with anything under those rules.

[prock.livejournal.com]

It's wrong to tell people who they should associate with.

Actually, it's not.

You may think it's wrong.

Most racists do.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's wrong to legally mandate that sort of thing, I should say.

Of course, you wouldn't do something so stupid as to imply that I'm a racist, right?

[prock.livejournal.com]

It's wrong to legally mandate that sort of thing, I should say.

Not at all. In fact, this is a huge part of what makes free markets free. A market which is invitation only, is not in fact a free market.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In fact, such a market is free, as the market is free to choose all aspects of its work.

[prock.livejournal.com]

In the hands of Adam Smith anthropomorphizing markets was an informative metaphor. When you do it, you just sound loony.

Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You can discriminate in your private life to your heart's content on whatever basis you think is appropriate according to one's morality and conscience.

However in the public sphere, and that includes the legal trade of goods and services using legal tender, you cannot.

As it should be, end of story.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

However in the public sphere, and that includes the legal trade of goods and services using legal tender, you cannot.

As it should be, end of story.

I'll say it again - no one has the right to anyone else's goods or services. The private sphere is private for a reason, and to pretend that private transactions exist "in the public sphere" is a distortion of that process.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

It is carried out in accordance to public law, it uses public money and is advertised among the public. It is not a private transaction.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It is carried out in accordance to public law, it uses public money and is advertised among the public. It is not a private transaction.

Well, "public law" is wrong in this instance, that's the problem.

"Public money" is an interesting term. Are you now saying people are not entitled to the money they earn? If the transactions are done without legal tender (i.e, through debt/credit systems as an example), does that pass your test?

"Advertised among the public" doesn't make much sense, either - newspapers are private entities, as are television stations. Those are also private transactions.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[prock.livejournal.com]

Well, "public law" is wrong in this instance, that's the problem.

Quite the contrary, it's you who are wrong. A priori exclusion from the marketplace is unjust and cannot be tolerated in a libertarian marketplace. Your right to freely associate does not trump someone else's right to access markets.

Re: Public and Private Discrimination

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Are you now saying people are not entitled to the money they earn?

Not automatically. They are only entitled to the money they earn as long it is in accordance to law. This is why, for example, you can't sell property that legally belongs to another person, or contraband.

If the transactions are done without legal tender (i.e, through debt/credit systems as an example), does that pass your test?

No, of course not. Credit and debit cards still are referents to legal tender and legal transactions.

"Advertised among the public" doesn't make much sense

It doesn't matter if newspapers or televisions stations are privately owned. Their broadcast is public.