AZ Legislature turns back clock, resumes segregation, but this time for gays

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see any reason why Brewer won't veto this. She has no reason to fear pissing off the far-right since she's term-limited, and she's too old for presidential ambitions.

By the same logic, she has no reason to fear pissing off moderates.  If she truly believes she won't be running in any future elections, she can make whatever decision she wishes without worrying about the politics too much.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's also about how to balance the right to inclusion in society with the right to choose who to associate with, polnut.  I don't think this bill strikes the right balance, but a more narrowly targeted bill that would allow people and businesses to choose to not provide services to same-sex weddings or similar events where the sexuality of the clients is something that would be evident would strike an acceptable balance as far as I am concerned.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's also about how to balance the right to inclusion in society with the right to choose who to associate with, polnut.  I don't think this bill strikes the right balance, but a more narrowly targeted bill that would allow people and businesses to choose to not provide services to same-sex weddings or similar events where the sexuality of the clients is something that would be evident would strike an acceptable balance as far as I am concerned.

Such a bill would be more directly discriminatory and unworkable. It provides a set of people with an acquired status (people can change religion like they change their breakfast cereal) legal protections to discriminate against people with an inbuilt status (the same goes for arguments allowing religious discrimination against women). How do you measure a defendant's religiousity? How does the court test determine how 'faithful' a person is and what weight that carries? Can someone who has such a wooly attachment to religion, faith or spirituality refuse to provide services motivated by homophobia and then declare to the court that it was done based on religious conviction. Who vouches for that?

No one needs to vouch for it, nor does my position depend in any form upon religion save as it may influence the choices that a person or organization may make in deciding with whom to associate. My position is based on the right of free association not the right of religion.  As a general rule I do not want government to force people to associate with those they don't want to associate with.  (Nor do I want government to force people to not associate with certain people as unfortunately happened during the de jure racial segregation of the Jim Crow era.) While this is a rather hyperbolic way of stating it, forcing people to work for you against their will is generally considered slavery, is it not?

Hence, the onus is on those who would force such associations when one party does not want to associate to justify that use of government coercion. I do not think that not getting a particular florist, photographer, DJ, caterer, reception hall, et cetera for an event because the provider would rather have nothing to do with that event does not rise to the level of a fundamental breech of one's rights that would justify interference with the right of private individuals to choose who to associate with.  Now if private discrimination were to be of such a level as to make it impossible or significantly difficult to hold such an event, maybe then government coercion could be justified, but I don't see that happening.  In a case such as this, where we have a conflict between two rights, one of them is going to need to be heavily impacted to bring the weight of government coercion down in favor of one of them and I don't see the impact here to be heavy enough to justify government interfering with the right of free association.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And please, don't act like being on a corporate board is an important full-time job.  A large ficus tree could serve on the Marriott board and nobody would notice.

The gardener would.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a general rule I do not want government to force people to associate with those they don't want to associate with.  (Nor do I want government to force people to not associate with certain people as unfortunately happened during the de jure racial segregation of the Jim Crow era.)

And why wouldn’t your proposed law be the same? Other than various local governments and some states, there is no federal law protecting LGBT people from discrimination. Other than in some towns, there is no law in Arizona. Why therefore change the law in Arizona which currently does not offer protection to LGBT people by omission, into a law that objectively codifies that discrimination?

Well, beyond the main reason this bill was brought up in the first place was to be a political stunt, there is also the tendency of some judges to rewrite laws as they feel they ought to have been written when the legislature doesn't explicitly state everything. Hence, I can understand why some might feel the need for making this explicit.  It certainly would be better if they amended the existing law to make it explicit that only the listed classes are covered and no judge is to extend the list since there are reasons unrelated to LGBT why one might choose to decline to provide a service. (Even better would be to repeal those laws entirely, but they exist in part as a remedy to the previous decades of de jure required discrimination against ethnic minorities and women.  While I believe they can be repealed someday, it's too soon for that.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When would this bill come into play then?  Could a religious person decide not to honor a contract they made, because they discover that the other party is gay?  Could you negligently injure someone and not have to pay any damages because the victim is gay?

It would come into play when a service provider refuses to enter into a contract.  Conceivably it might also come into play in an existing contract if one side made a misrepresentation of what the service was to be for, but that would be the exception rather than the usual rule.  Certainly it would never come into play for physical damages.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Being tolerant of other types of people is not equivalent to being tolerant of other people's intolerance.  Homophobia is wrong and is a set of beliefs, not a group of people who immigrated to this country for Homophobiavania. 

This. Tolerance doesn't mean pretending that horrible people aren't horrible.

And to the homophobes, homos are horrible people.  That's why you need a much better reason than "it's horrible" if you're going to justify government action that forces people to do things they would rather not do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see any problem here. An university has no business regulating personal life of their students. If it was a divinity school, I could understand, but not a law school.

And what business is it of the law societies what personal code of conduct a law school may require of its students?  How does that code of conduct make those students unfit to be lawyers?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see any problem here. An university has no business regulating personal life of their students. If it was a divinity school, I could understand, but not a law school.

And what business is it of the law societies what personal code of conduct a law school may require of its students?  How does that code of conduct make those students unfit to be lawyers?

It's the duty of a law society to assure than the rights of its members (the persons) and future members are respected.

Doesn't that mean that the law societies shouldn't violate the rights those who choose to go to that school by denying them accreditation solely because of the code of conduct that they voluntarily agreed to when they decided to go there?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see any problem here. An university has no business regulating personal life of their students. If it was a divinity school, I could understand, but not a law school.

And what business is it of the law societies what personal code of conduct a law school may require of its students?  How does that code of conduct make those students unfit to be lawyers?

It's the duty of a law society to assure than the rights of its members (the persons) and future members are respected.

Doesn't that mean that the law societies shouldn't violate the rights those who choose to go to that school by denying them accreditation solely because of the code of conduct that they voluntarily agreed to when they decided to go there?

Those people are free to end their education in another school. Canadian universities usually recognize courses followed in other universities. Current students just would have to change universities (and it's their fault if they chose that university, knowing that controversial code of conduct).

So you favor punishing people because of their opinions?  In case you hadn't noticed, it's 2014, not 1984.  I do not favor having thoughtcrimes.  Now if you could point out how this student code of conduct would prevent them from practicing law once they have graduated, I could perhaps buy the argument you're trying to make, but as far as I can see, it's irrelevant to whether one is capable of being a lawyer.

I think than the main point is than many persons fail to understand than freedoms are for persons, not businesses.

"Personal freedom" trumps "business freedom to impose their ideas on their employees/students/customers"

I think I understand you now.  People are free to have ideas only so long as they are lone individuals.  The moment they try to organize into groups they lose all rights to have ideas that you disagree with.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, what I mean is than you can't impose your ideas on other people. You can think homosexuality is a sin, but you can't impose it on your customers or your students.

Why?  Why does having a primary goal of making money deprive an organization of its political and/or religious rights?  It can't force people to buy its products and if it is a school it can't force students to attend, so it isn't imposing anything on anyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd have no problem with that.  You might have difficulty getting students to agree to that.  But since it would be their choice, there is no force involved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're saying that homophobes are insane criminals just as the kleptomaniac is?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, do the employees even need protection?  I could perhaps see the need if after accepting employment, the employer changed its requirements, but this is a case of people freely choosing whether or not to abide by the code of conduct that the school requires.  They aren't forced into accepting the code because if they don't accept it they can go to a different school that doesn't have it.  Rather you are advocating forcing your own beliefs on businesses and organizations.  I agree with those beliefs, but I strongly disagree with forcing others to act upon those beliefs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And it forces people to not change their values as long they go to that school or keep that job.

Didn't you just say that affected students would find it easy to transfer to another school?  Indeed, you did!

Those people are free to end their education in another school. Canadian universities usually recognize courses followed in other universities. Current students just would have to change universities

You can't logically claim on the one hand that forcing students to change schools has no impact upon them and then say on the other hand that it is an intolerable impact if they have to change schools because their beliefs change so that they are incompatible with those of the school they were attending.  The only difference between the two situations is why they have to change schools.

It's weird than you talk about me forcing my beliefs on people, when defending businesses and schools doing the same with their employees.

If all businesses and schools required the same set of beliefs, you would have a point.  But they don't.  Indeed, it appears only one law school in Canada has this student code of conduct you disapprove of so it certainly is not forcing anything.  Unless that law school suddenly became a monopoly that was the only way to become a Canadian lawyer, they can't impose their beliefs on anyone.  However, the law societies are a monopoly in each province.  They have the ability to impose beliefs.  That's why unless that belief impairs the ability to be a lawyer, they should not be allowed to act upon that ability. How does being a homophobe keep one from being a competent lawyer who can act on behalf of one's chosen clients, and if it does not, then why should the law societies care about the beliefs of its members or of its law schools?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Jim Crow was an aberration fostered in part by de jure required segregation.  Also, unlike race or gender discrimination, discrimination based on non-visually determinable characteristics would require what in most situations would be a fairly intrusive line of inquiry to find out if you'd even want to discriminate.  After all, that was one reason the Nazis made use of the infamous yellow star: to make it easy for people to discriminate against the Nazi's chosen targets.  Hence anyone who would be likely to be even able to discriminate against people of a particular religion or sexual identity would need to be in a business in which they would ordinarily learn enough about that person in the ordinary course of business.  That ain't gonna apply to gas stations, grocery stores, or most other retail businesses.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Jim Crow was an aberration fostered in part by de jure required segregation.  Also, unlike race or gender discrimination, discrimination based on non-visually determinable characteristics would require what in most situations would be a fairly intrusive line of inquiry to find out if you'd even want to discriminate.  After all, that was one reason the Nazis made use of the infamous yellow star: to make it easy for people to discriminate against the Nazi's chosen targets.  Hence anyone who would be likely to be even able to discriminate against people of a particular religion or sexual identity would need to be in a business in which they would ordinarily learn enough about that person in the ordinary course of business.  That ain't gonna apply to gas stations, grocery stores, or most other retail businesses.

That sort of confirms that you actually know nothing about discrimination against LGBT people in practice.

I agree that I have no personal experience with the issue, but who the heck is going to know what your sexuality is when you go to the grocery store, even if they were bigoted enough to want to know so they could discriminate against gays?  If your grocer is that nosy, you need a new grocer even if they don't discriminate against you.  Note also that I limited my claim to retail.  There are of course other businesses such as restaurants where it would be easier to notice the sexuality of people since they would be going there with their partner or date.  And of course, employment discrimination would be easier to accomplish since most employers want to know about their employees' families.

But you know what, even if people dislike you for stupid reasons, you have no right to be liked.  The only relevant question is whether that dislike causes people to collectively act to the point where it hurts not merely your feelings but your actual rights.  Everyone one has the right to work, to live, and to shop, but no one has the right to demand they be able to work at a specific job, live at a specific place, or shop at a specific business.  So the fact that some places discriminate against some people is not a problem unless so many do so as to cause significant problems.  The level at which that problem becomes significant is of course a subjective opinion, which means that in a small-r republican system of government, it is the job of the legislature to decide where that level is.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

no one has the right to demand they be able to work at a specific job, live at a specific place, or shop at a specific business

This is the sort of point of view that would only be held by someone who has never experienced discrimination.

No it's the point of view of someone who isn't trying to force people to think a certain way.  I do not agree with idiot homophobes, but I will defend their right to be idiots because that way I can best ensure that those who think I'm an idiot won't try to force me to stop being an idiot.

I agree that I have no personal experience with the issue, but who the heck is going to know what your sexuality is when you go to the grocery store, even if they were bigoted enough to want to know so they could discriminate against gays?

I think you have plenty of personal experience.

Not on that issue.  I'm not LGBT, nor do I want to discriminate against those who are, so I have no personal experience on either end of LGBT discrimination.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree that I have no personal experience with the issue, but who the heck is going to know what your sexuality is when you go to the grocery store, even if they were bigoted enough to want to know so they could discriminate against gays?

If you happen to walk in with your husband.

I don't generally think of grocery shopping as a family activity.  At most when I'm out shopping, I see one parent with kids in tow, since it doesn't require two adults to do one grocery shopping trip.  I'd think there would be better things one of you could do than to follow the other around as they push the shopping cart, but then perhaps you go to a more entertaining grocers than I do.

Still, even here in prudish South Carolina, I can't say I've heard any examples of grocery stores refusing to serve gays.  Maybe in Uganda, but gays have far more serious problems there than shopping.

no one has the right to demand they be able to work at a specific job, live at a specific place, or shop at a specific business

This is the sort of point of view that would only be held by someone who has never experienced discrimination.

No it's the point of view of someone who isn't trying to force people to think a certain way.  I do not agree with idiot homophobes, but I will defend their right to be idiots because that way I can best ensure that those who think I'm an idiot won't try to force me to stop being an idiot.

Are you opposed to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?  Would you support allowing discrimination on account of race, religion or gender?

Ideally, I'd like to see both Titles II and VII repealed someday, tho they were definitely needed in 1964 both as a remedy for past de jure discrimination and because of widespread de facto discrimination that impeded the civil rights of those affected by discrimination to the point that interference with the right of free association was warranted.  However, I wouldn't push for their repeal today. We might be at the point that Title II could be repealed, but it's debatable and there are plenty of more urgent issues that need to be addressed by the limited attention span of Congress.  Title VII is regrettably still needed fifty years after passage and probably the earliest its repeal could be considered is in another fifty years in 2064.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The thing is Ernest, you shouldn't have to live your life on guard, constantly searching out for safe places (even if only in a metaphorical sense). That's why pervasive discrimination is such an awful ugly thing.

There are all sorts of things we shouldn't have to do.  I don't believe that the role of government is to guarantee we never have to do any of them because frankly, it can never honor such a guarantee.  Hence it must concentrate on the more serious ugly things.  Given what has been by historical standards an extremely rapid change in attitudes towards LGBTs over the past couple of decades, I just can't see this as being one the more serious ugly things in Western society today.  Private action via protest and boycott of those who do discriminate is likely to be about as effective and doesn't require saddling an oft ponderous government with yet another task to do middling well, assuming they get the funding to do it in the first place.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think that on the whole, most acts of discrimination are insignificant? Is it 'insignificant', if you are gay to be discriminated against just a few times? Maybe once a day. If your grocer doesn't want to serve you, just find another. If no one will host your wedding, just find another. If the school you work for sacks you, just go find another. If you can't deal with your doctor because of what he says about you, just go find another.

Just go find another. Just go find another. And if it really becomes a burden then take it to court.

No, if the sum of these acts of petty discrimination becomes such a burden, then take it to the legislature as happened here in 1964.

I still haven't heard any argument for why we should repeal anti-discrimination laws, regardless of the time period.

Because not only should government not try to do everything, it can't.  Once the tendency to discrimination becomes low enough as to not cause a serious impact to society, it will be time to remove the anti-discrimination laws and allow government to focus on more serious concerns.  What constitutes serious impact and when the point that discrimination is not causing such impact is reached are of course subjective opinions to be decided by the legislative branch.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you think employment discrimination against women should be illegal, why not LGBT people?

The libertarian in me worries that if we keep adding new protected classes, we'll never be rid of these laws restricting the right of free association.  But the realist in me wouldn't mind amending Title VII to cover LGBT discrimination. I don't see the need to amend Title II but could potentially be convinced of it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that gay people are never discriminated against.  And it shouldn't take LGBT specific laws to deal with physical assault.  Those attacks are felonies to be tackled and dealt with no matter their motivation.  Is it really less of a concern if someone gets assaulted for some other reason?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But the realist in me wouldn't mind amending Title VII to cover LGBT discrimination. I don't see the need to amend Title II but could potentially be convinced of it.

Yet you've spent the last week arguing broadly in favour of the spirit of a state law specifically enshrining discrimination in statue (as opposed to it existing already simply by omission)

It's not enshrining discrimination but the right for people to choose to discriminate (which I grant exists already, making the law largely irrelevant save as a preemptive strike against a future activist court.)  I'll admit that you likely do not feel that distinction is relevant, but to me it is.  If it were enshrining discrimination, people would be required to discriminate even when they don't want to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By definition, free association requires the consent of both parties.  It is not a unilateral right in which one person gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates.  The right is equally impaired by forcing an association when one or both parties would not choose to associate and by preventing an association when both parties do choose to associate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And, just on this subject of gay people never being discriminated against, look at this article.  That details hatred motivated attacks on gay people in a small area of New York City in just a few months.  These things actually happen as most gay people can attest to. 

I never said that gay people are never discriminated against.  And it shouldn't take LGBT specific laws to deal with physical assault.  Those attacks are felonies to be tackled and dealt with no matter their motivation.  Is it really less of a concern if someone gets assaulted for some other reason?

I've been assaulted for being gay and I've had people assault me in a mugging.  Believe me, it feels a lot different.  Just like it feels a lot different being fired for being gay and being fired for good cause.

I'm not sure why different feelings about requires different laws. Why can't they give the perpetrator 5 yrs for assault in both cases?

It unfortunately likely that those who assaulted him for being gay did a more thoro job of it than those who assaulted him for money, in which case a stiffer sentence is warranted.  But that would be because of the result not the cause.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By definition, free association requires the consent of both parties.  It is not a unilateral right in which one person gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates.  The right is equally impaired by forcing an association when one or both parties would not choose to associate and by preventing an association when both parties do choose to associate.

That doesn't make sense. You're saying free association only means something if both parties consent. Given that gay people don't consent to the Arizona law inhibiting what little rights of association they have, how can that law be about promoting 'free association'?

How does that law impair gay people in Arizona from associating with people who want to associate with them?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is impaired if government forces the party that said 'no' to associate with the party that said 'yes' because that party said 'yes'. Let me try a table to make clear what I mean.

Free Association

Merchant	Customer	Sale of Good or Service
Yes	Yes	Yes
Yes	No	No
No	Yes	No
No	No	No

Anti-discrimination sales law

Merchant	Customer	Sale of Good or Service
Yes	Yes	Yes
Yes	No	No
No	Yes	Yes
No	No	No

The third entry in both tables is the only difference in results.

I suppose that to impose equally upon buyers and sellers one could also add a law that requires homophobic customers to buy from gay merchants, altho I doubt whether such a law would work except in cases where a customer solicits bids for a merchant to provide a good or service.

Are you tired?  It was after midnight in Scotland when you posted this and while I sometimes disagree with you, this last post of yours has you coming across as awfully dense, which you usually don't.  The only possibility I've been able to figure out that makes your last post only half-dense is that if you are thinking that a merchant's refusal to provide a service to a person interferes with the right of that person to associate with a third party.  But if you introduce a third party into the mix then free association requires the assent of all three parties.  Besides, we're talking about the United States and third parties never do well here at the polls.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's more a case that I doubt the ability of government action here to produce the utopian vision of a more tolerant society.  I think it's more likely to follow the ongoing trend towards a more tolerant society than to be a catalyst for effecting that change. As such, anti-LGBT discrimination laws are only likely to be enacted at the point when the benefits they produce would be rapidly declining.

What I find really weird about conservative apologias of this law is the insistence that a wedding photographer refusing to accept gay couples as clients is any different from someone turning that couple away from a restaurant or grocery store. What are the grounds for that distinction?

A photographer's ability to do their job well is influenced by comfort with their couple. For a restaurant or grocery store, if you're professional, it shouldn't make a difference.

To a degree that depends on the restaurant.  A fast food joint doesn't require any empathy with the customer, but I could see it with a higher class restaurant with extensive personal service as part of the experience.  But as a practical matter restaurants are already exempt from the Civil Rights Act since any potential restauranteurs who do want to discriminate need only organize as a nebulously defined "private club" to exempt themselves from Title II now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thinking on this some more in light of your last post Andrew, it appears that one fundamental difference is that I am viewing the default state of people as non-association, in which case both people need to agree to associate while you view the default state of people as being associated.  I don't agree with that view, but if I took it, then I would assert that people do have a right to choose non-association and that the right is a unilateral one in that any person can generally choose the people they do not associate with.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll only briefly reply that laws cannot work unless the society for which they are made supports those laws.