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

[afleitch]

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.

[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.

[MaxQue]

Apparently, Ernest has never lived outside of a big city.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

[bgwah]

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.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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?

[afleitch]

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.

[MaxQue]

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.

How dare you impose the view of an happy gay couple to "Christians"!

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Joe Republic]

"Who the heck goes grocery shopping as a couple?!"

[afleitch]

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.

How dare you impose the view of an happy gay couple to "Christians"!

And there is the problem. I don't think seeking to discriminate against gay people is the mark of a Christian. I believe that it's the mark of an asshole. Because to go out your way not to help someone takes so much more effort than simply helping them.

Now Ernest, you keep saying 'well you can't tell' if someone is gay. Now I know we don't have black faces or breasts but that doesn't mean that active discrimination is 'tougher' to prove. If you are in a town people may know you are gay. If you dare to have a partner or marry them (and I think that full federal recognition of gay marriage will come before changes to federal discrimination statutes) then people will  know. You also say 'So the fact that some places discriminate against some people is not a problem unless so many do so as to cause significant problems.'

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. I mean, you'll have to do it for each individual time you're discriminated against and you'll have to let people pour over the intricacies and if you win? Well it's another blow against 'religious' freedom isn't it? We'll need to enact more laws to protect that. And it feeds into the cycle of majority victim-hood.

The reason why these laws are proposed is not to protect 'religious' rights. You have the constitution behind you. It's to simply beat gay people down.

[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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I still haven't heard any argument for why we should repeal anti-discrimination laws, regardless of the time period.  Discrimination exists today, it will still be around in fifty years, it will still be around in a hundred years.  It doesn't just "go away," it only becomes less and less socially acceptable as the years come and go.  Why does it matter, even, if it's one hundred people getting discriminated against versus one thousand people?  Why should the government legalize bigotry?  No one's forcing you to think a certain way.  You can mutter the n-word under your breath if a black guy walks into your establishment and that's all fine and dandy as long as you treat him the same way you'd treat anyone else.

The bottom line is, we all have to work with people we don't like to work with sometimes.  If you don't have a valid reason to turn a person away, then don't do it.  If you think serving a gay couple food and taking their cash is going to send you to hell, then you have a lot more problems than some anti-discrimination law.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

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

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. 

[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?

[afleitch]

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)

There can never be 'free association' in practice. One set of people who are excluded by 'free association' because of that exclusion are in turn denied full freedom of association themselves.

[bedstuy]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

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?

[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.

[afleitch]

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'?

You then say the right of free association is impaired by forcing an association when one or both would not choose to associate. But how can the right of free association be impaired by one party saying 'no' when the other party wants to say 'yes' when you've just said free association requires the consent of both parties?

[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.