Kemp pledges to sign religious freedom bill to discriminate lgbt+ people.
226 replies, posted
?
???
Sometimes arguments on facepunch are more for the third parties who aren't dug in.
There's a p. inherent appeal to being libertarian about these things, it's just that especially here it just doesn't work out humanely.
Putting aside for a moment the numerous fallacies and the delusion that the invisible hand of the free market could somehow compensate the effects of open discrimination...
imagine wanting to live in a world where different groups of people have inevitably become segregated societies within a society, and are pitted against each other for businesses' competition
Some people seem to want to chase "freedom" to such an extent that it doesn't matter how many people are hurt or how much damage is done or even what state the word ends up in, as long as everyone is truly "free" at the end of the day. That or maybe they just don't give a shit about the people most harmed regardless of their claims to the contrary.
most, if not all of your arguments function only in a vacuum where one's financial stability isn't considered. which seems like a big fucking thing to leave out. i'd like to know about your own life, could you, like the people you're describing, move out or start a business on a whim?
You're really living up to your profile pic mate.
A state where legislation like this may be passed without major public blowback is not a state where market forces will correct towards the moral good. People claiming that posting a sign saying "LGBT Friendly" out front will have you swimming in market share fail to consider whether Joe Schmoe of Georgia will rather go to the "normal" bakery or the "big, gay cake" shop down the street. It fails to consider whether other businesses like suppliers, contractors, attorney offices, or accountants would want to be associated with the "big, gay cake" shop. It fails to consider whether, by outing themselves as a business that caters to a minority, it makes the business, its workers, and its owners the target to attack for being that "big, gay cake" shop. There's a reason why, before the civil rights act, black-operated diners serving black and white clientele were not exactly prosperous businesses. They were absolutely not on equal footing in terms of resources, challenges, and liability as their fellow restaurant-ere colleagues. Your economics models, while rational within a vacuum, work as well outside of that vacuum as collectivism.
I find it fucking scary to think that there could be a law that would give shopowners the power to potentially destroy my life in a given town and force me to relocate because no one would want to do business with me.
how about you move to somewhere with no internet so no one has to read your idiotic mental diarrhoea any more
Imagine granting a town the legal power to effectively decide, for some non-threatening non-issue, to excommunicate you.
You're ignorant of the events that are happening at this moment if you believe this to be the case.
Governments should protect rights, not abdicate them.
I find it quaint that you think that businesses dehumanising people is merely them being "assholes".
Actually, quaint is not quite right. I think the word I was looking for is "disgusting".
I bet you've never been discriminated in your life for something you didn't control, huh?
Absolutely repulsive.
This is what happens when you let businesses freely discriminate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book
African-American travelers faced hardships such as white-owned businesses refusing to serve them or repair their vehicles, being refused accommodation or food by white-owned hotels, and threats of physical
violence and forcible expulsion from whites-only "sundown towns". Green founded and published the Green Book to avoid such problems, compiling resources "to give the Negro traveler information that will keep
him from running into difficulties, embarrassments and to make his trip more enjoyable."
Why does this sound very familiar?
https://www.sciencesource.com/Doc/SCS/Media/TR1_WATERMARKED/3/8/4/9/SS2666449.jpg?d63643994263
https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2012/NYR/2012_NYR_02543_0246_000(elliott_erwitt_segregated_water_fountains_north_carolina_1950).jpg
http://mrd4-jimcrow-shopping.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/5/2/24528744/812596380.jpg?589
Nope, cant think of a single thing. Must have been imagining it.
whats the point of giving people the freedom to be assholes if you're also restricting people's freedom to respond in kind to assholes? that's just a system that privileges assholes.
No need to be subtle about it, Chryseus thinks that situation would be perfectly acceptable today.
No there isn't.
If you can't eat, you fucking die. If you live in an area that discriminates against you, and you can't do enough business to survive, that's the government failing to protect your welfare.
These hardcore libertarians who think the free market will solve social problems are the biggest fucking morons I swear.
Read this post and try again
Or don't probably. You clearly didn't read the thread.
"Freedom" is such a nebulous concept. Do you think that I should have the right to take whatever I want from someone without their consent because I have the right to "freedom?" Of course not. So long as you aren't advocating for Anarchism, you're already agreeing that people do not have the right to absolute freedom, and in some capacity society has a responsibility to protect people from malicious behavior.
And again, as people have pointed out a billion times in this thread, going elsewhere isn't an option for everyone. There is a fucking reason that the Civil Rights Act was necessary.
then clearly your eyes are closed and in your state of blissful ignorance you fail to see that not only is this a common problem in the US, its a common problem in any community with tensions between a majority and a minority group, be they based in ethnicity, nationality, ideology, or religion.
You get absolutely no sympathy from me for throwing away your rights. You ARE aware that you would not say any of this if those laws weren't already in place right? The only reason you haven't relentlessly been much more discriminated against is because it's been illegal to do so for your entire life. You're a fool.
Judging from how things have been going in your country lately, maybe people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
You're right in saying that things have been improving, because we have been taking active steps to improve them. Progress is not guaranteed, if the past two years have sown us anything, it's that society is ready to backslide into bigotry and ignorance at a moments notice if we complacently allow it to.
@Chryseus2 I want you to carefully explain to my why you think it's a good idea to allow businesses to discriminate based on race sex etc.
I'm afraid I'm a drooling moron and can't understand. Please include more than just the word freedom too.
Nobody saw coming the resurgence of Nazis yet here we are. I mean why bother buying insurance, your house never caught on fire so why would it later?
I can't even fathom the lack of self-awareness, and ignorance it takes to hold a view this self contradicting.
protected rights and unbridled freedom are diametrically opposed poles. the idea of a state and a police force to enforce its laws is as a compromise between these two.
what you seem to state here is no balance at all, its a faulty belief that you increase people's "freedom" when you merely increase the freedom of a few assholes fully believing that others can live with it within the restrictions to their freedom that the laws of the state and their financial and social (and physical) situations dictate - restrictions on freedom left conveniently untouched.
@Chryseus2 You live in the UK mate. You're privileged and you don't even realize it.
You keep saying this but not once have you explained why.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.