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

[afleitch]

This is basically the GOP's short to medium term plan and given American's penchant for wrapping religious rights in a golden robe so that it trumps almost every other born right, it might just be a little bit more successful at state level.

[afleitch]

Good, good. To be honest though, how easy is it to tell whether somebody is gay or not. I mean, sure, there's a few out there who set off the old gaydar, but realistically now. 'Tis pretty difficult sometimes.

You need to sort your life out.

[afleitch]

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?

[afleitch]

However, I am simply pointing out that, to me, the most important criteria when it comes to important decision making are how something will affect me, and the people around me.

Then you need to make more friends.

[afleitch]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[afleitch]

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

I don't generally think of grocery shopping as a family activity.

You defined freedom of association as; '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.'

So if LGBT people are potential associates and freedom of association is not a unilateral right in which one person (the Christian) gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates (the gay) then in what context did the law strengthen freedom of association? That's what didn't make sense.

[afleitch]

You don't necessarily need to be shopping with boyfriend in tow for someone to know you're gay. If you're gay in a small rural town, it'll be talked about. Or even in a mid-sized conservative town. People will know you, solely for the purpose of not knowing you. A small handful of same-minded folks could easily force people of a certain type out of -- or keep people out of -- communities.

It happened to my husband when he went home to Pennsylvania for the first time since he came out. . It's partly why I took a week off the forum to deal with the sh-t when he got back to Scotland.

[afleitch]

You defined freedom of association as; '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.'

So if LGBT people are potential associates and freedom of association is not a unilateral right in which one person (the Christian) gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates (the gay) then in what context did the law strengthen freedom of association? That's what didn't make sense.

And stop trying to be an asshole. You're not very good at it.

You do seem to be an expert.

An expert at what?

[afleitch]

You defined freedom of association as; '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.'

So if LGBT people are potential associates and freedom of association is not a unilateral right in which one person (the Christian) gets to choose with whom they will associate regardless of the desires of potential associates (the gay) then in what context did the law strengthen freedom of association? That's what didn't make sense.

And stop trying to be an asshole. You're not very good at it.

You do seem to be an expert.

An expert at what?

I would have thought my meaning clear, but it is clear we have a failure to communicate here.  Whether that's because of you, me, or both of us, I don't know.  But then communication, just like free association requires both parties to be in accord for it to happen.  Clearly we aren't in accord here.

Your meaning wasn’t clear.

You come across as someone who knows that what you envision as the ideal can’t under any circumstances work. In a society that politically and socially is fundamentally white, fundamentally male, fundamentally Christian and fundamentally straight there cannot be a level playing field, because such a level playing field disadvantages those who hold positions of power and authority as a result of their ‘in’ status. That’s been there in America since it’s foundation and influences its constitution and laws. It continues in governance today. You can only elevate classes that have suffered prejudice to any level of parity by protecting them from discrimination, otherwise they will encounter it at each stage of their life. Talent, drive and ambition don’t count for anything if ultimately that can be brushed aside for aesthetic purposes. Discrimination is personal invalidation.

So we have those same fundamentals; white, male, straight, Christians in Arizona sh-tting their pants over a hypothetical cake maker being forced to make a hypothetical cake for a hypothetical gay wedding and yet the fact that you can be sacked from your job because you are gay doesn’t concern them.

The truth is homophobia is very real and its effects are very real. And yes, it might inconvenience you that you would have to extend the Civil Rights Act (because apparently the constitution wasn’t clear enough) to cover yet another class of people even though you acknowledge that it is needed to protect those already protected. It’s needed because society doesn’t play nice when it’s left alone to self-segregate. Personal freedom is not something that exists unrelated to human interaction. You might want to be as free an individual as you want to be, but the moment your subsistence relies on other people, (which quite frankly it always will) then from that moment you’re never fully free. You can’t always make people play nice, but you can at least try to make them play a little fairer. Then when you play fair, you might, just might start being nice to each other.

[afleitch]

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 do. I am a humanist. We are human beings; we are defined by our association with other humans from birth. I think the natural state of being is mutual association. I think that the reasons why people seek to discriminate; on the basis of the perceived status of women, over colour, race, sexuality etc are social constructs. Allowing people to perpetuate constructs deserve secondary status in law to peoples inherent traits.

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.

I do not think that realistically people have an equal right to choose the people they don't wish to associate with, because the power group tend to determine laws and social norms concerning freedom of association. Therefore some groups are always subjugated and can never reciprocate that 'freedom' of association because they are not granted the power to or are not placed on an equal footing. How can a gay person, who is currently not subject to federal protection and until 2003 didn't even have a constitutional right to privacy exercise any 'freedom of association' if legally, he isn't fully free in the eyes of the law? The only way he can exercise any freedom to be protected by the law, not omitted by the law in the hope that society will afford him that freedom of it's own volition.

For the same reason, a Saudi women does not have free association because the dominant power group has determined that she does not have that right. If we were able to give her that right, what would be the best legal move? Grant her protection from discrimination under the law, or have no protection from the law for anyone including women, and still allowing continued discrimination under the guise of 'freedom of association'?

That is essentially it from me. I don't have the will to argue further.