Last week, the Indiana State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". The verbiage of the bill is sufficiently vague [by design] to seem benign on it's face....but the public statements by supporters of this bill, leading up to it's passing, make it quite clear what it's about [some Indiana establishments are already declaring that they will no longer serve gays]. A special privilege for religion....but with an ironic twist probably not thought of by the proponents - only those religions sanctioned by the Government. If I followed a religious belief not shared with the dominant faiths of this nation, my standing in a court of law under this bill, would likely be nil.
That's something I fail to understand, regarding the pursuit of a victimhood status by the dominant and pervasive religious faith of this society. Many of the faithful rail against alleged government intrusion in their religious practices while accepting both special privileges and incentives from said government - and ignorant of the precedent set when laws like this pass. They seemingly fail to realize that every time a law is passed creating a special right or allowing them to discriminate as please, they set a legal precedence that can be used against them. The chicken little charades over Shari'a law taking hold in this nation, are made more likely with the passing of each one of these laws.
In the end however, it is not religious freedom they seek, they already have that. Are there instances where this is infringed upon? Absolutely, and those cases should be adjudicated appropriately, taking religious liberty into account, without carving out a special right not available to other citizens...based merely on what a citizen believes.
Back to the Indiana law. I wrote above that the bill was written to a level of vagueness [by design I believe], such that Gov. Pence is forced to "clarify the intent" of the measure. I'm thinking that a "Clarification Bill" is an easier process now that the law has been passed, than were the "clarity" to be written into the law in the first place. By design. Special privileges.
Personally, as I have stated previously, I support the right of private business owners to refuse goods or services to whomever they wish. That someone believes in a deity, and I am fairly agnostic, doesn't equal their belief to be any more valid than my own, in the eyes of the law. THAT is religious freedom.
But let the majority continue to pursue their crusade of victimhood, along with their well heeled industry of faux outrage and contrived injury. It will be their undoing, because they're not playing the long game; they're not pursuing a coherent and just strategy; and they are ensuring that they will not remain the dominant religious faith [among the landscape of faithful and not] in perpetuity [as declining numbers already indicate].
This is all about destroying the Civil Rights Act. It is despicable and you guys are no better than the religious zealots in the matter.ReplyDelete
Don't want to do business with the PUBLIC? Do not operate in PUBLIC.
"This is all about destroying the Civil Rights Act."Delete
Close. It's all about destroying liberty. If I don't want YOU to have the goods or services of MY labor.....I shouldn't have to provide it to you. Though you highlight PUBLIC, you forget that we're talking about PRIVATE business.
How does this law destroy the Civil Rights Act?
Full disclosure: because of the recent passing of my mother-in-law after a death watch of several days, I haven't been keeping up with this particular news story.
This is all about destroying the Civil Rights Act, AoW, whether you know it, acknowledge it, believe it, or not. It's obvious.Delete
And my sincere condolences, AoW. I lost my mother-in-law to very tragic and dark circumstances two years ago, and I loved her very much.
What does the text of the Civil Rights Act say about sexual orientation? Religion?
Lots of matters are now framed as civil rights issues, but are not necessarily in the context of the Civil Rights Act.
I'd quibble only slightly. I concur that the two categories above are not listed in the Civil Rights Act, but I would contend that they are in fact, civil rights.Delete
The reason that I'm asking about the Civil Rights Act....
This legislation in Indiana is being decried as violating the Civil Rights Act itself -- thus, by default, labeling the legislation as racist.
I heard on the news this morning that some states are considering banning any travel to Indiana. How does that work?
I don't think a government entity can stop anything but official business in another state.Delete
This law doesn't appear to violate the Civil Rights Act, by my reading, but Gov. Pence did himself no favors by having members/leaders of virulently anti-gay organizations - literally - standing behind him signing the bill.
I didn't know about the groups standing behind him as he signed the bill. That's an important detail which I had missed.
So, where is this "private" business?ReplyDelete
Look man, why don't you see what is so disgusting about what you're saying here? What the hell kind of society do you want to live in???ReplyDelete
Do you want a society where your labor is your own to dispense with as you see fit, or do you want a society where your labor is regulated, taxed and out of your control?Delete
I think I know your answer, and I think you know mine. I find yours disgusting as well.
CI, I don't want to live in a society where a child could walk by a storefront and know he can't walk in and buy a pack of gum because the owner sees fit to be a piece of shit scumbag. We have all sorts of rules regarding scumbag behavior in public. And they apply to doing business as well. The act of doing business is not some fucking holy activity that rises above human rights, you idiot.Delete
If you want to do business with the public then you should not be able to pick and choose who among the you do business with. It's disgusting to say otherwise. You may as well just be a klansman.
You may as well just be a klansman.
Well, you've shown your true colors. I welcome honest debate, but have little time for playground antics. All further posts from you will be deleted.
I think the "you" JMJ was referring to is a store owner who wishes to discriminate and not "you" as in the proprietor of this blog. Anyway, I agree with JMJ concerning businesses open to the public. They need to serve the public and not discriminate. If not then they should not be granted a business license (or it should be revoked).ReplyDelete
Here, as with the gun debate issue, CI finds that the rights of certain people trump the rights of others... Which is quite sad.
Incorrect, again.YOU have no 'right' to MY labor. If you contend that you do, you are ignorant of the definition of the term.Delete
CI said: "Incorrect, again.YOU have no 'right' to MY labor"Delete
Some people are all about such entitetement/greed/interference. Like in such matters as the "minimum wage", they might think it is OK that the government demand that employers pay workers thousands of dollars per year, above the amount the workers actually earn.
The citizenry has no obligation to grant you a business license unless you follow the rules. That you not Violate another's Right to not be discriminated against is one of those rules. It is also a Right Libertarians believe is trumped by the bigot's "right". A view which, as Jersey pointed out, is despicable. Discriminate in this manner and the State should revoke your business license.Delete
And, without a business license, these bigots won't have to worry about f*gs "destroying their liberty" by walking into a business expecting service instead of discrimination (the nerve!).
As for greedy employers not stealing from workers by underpaying them, society as a whole largely agrees with this concept... Which is why we have minumum wage laws.
Although, when it comes to those who hate workers (the lower wage ones especially) and greatly desire to see them paid as low a wage as possible (so those at the top can steal this money for themselves), it is understandable why they would be opposed to the State "interfering". By defending the worker's right to not be taken advantage of.
But in the Libertarian's world some rights are superior to others... As the OP pointed out.
Ah yes, ‘grant’ a business license. A tax on the ‘privilege’ selling one’s own goods or services. Like a true leftist, no action should go untaxed, eh?Delete
Do you ever notice your propensity to frame any disagreement as your opposition ‘hates’? You do this, presumably knowing full well that aside from it being an appeal to emption, it is unprovable and tactically unsupportable. Leading me to wonder why you’re unable to conduct discourse like a rational adult. Interesting.
But you are in one sense, correct. MY right to MY labor absolutely trumps YOUR right to MY labor. Thank you for acknowledging that.
CI: Of course. the citizenry never grant business licenses. These are granted by the State. A huge difference.Delete
"MY right to MY labor absolutely trumps YOUR right to MY labor"
Absolutely. Other's rights to YOUR labor are based on nothing other than their greed, covetousness, and a false and immoral attitude of entitlement.
Of of course it is a flat-out lie to call an employer who wants to pay their workers the value of the work (and nothing more) "greedy".Delete
Minimum wage laws are immoral as they demand that the employer hand over property to workers that was never earned. It's a form of theft: greed to slake the oinking of the lasy who can't be bothered to actually earn what they receive in a legitimate fashion.
Minimum wage laws are merely another means to strip the citizen of the right to his/her labor. It's obviously a prelude to the command economy desired by leftists....but it's not a paradigm supported by any who place a premium on individual liberty.Delete
CI: Exactly. A form of theft in which the rulers (at ultimate threat of gunpoint) force one person to give his/her property to someone who has no legitimate claim of any kind to it.Delete
"It's obviously a prelude to the command economy desired by leftists"
Yes, one in which the few rulers make the economic decisions and the people make none. Textbook fascism.
"but it's not a paradigm supported by any who place a premium on individual liberty."
No, but it is supported by those who worship power and authority for its own sake, while at the same time having a contempt for people and their rights.
I don't run your blog and would do things differently, CI. But I think you banned the wrong guy.ReplyDelete
Though him specifically calling you a Klansman when you have no bigotry is outrageous, Jersey seems at heart a good guy. Maybe he just had a bad day.
Anyway, enough on that... onward.
I don't think you conservatives and libertarians think through your positions with enough vigor.ReplyDelete
Jersey, not seeing what your problem is. The vast majority of C.I.'s parent post condemns the "special privilege" of religion. The part about the right of business owners was in a minor caveat in which he said it was his personal view, not a public policy demand.Delete
(hm) I thought I posted something here...Delete
You did. I deleted it. Convey your point of view like an adult, or take it somewhere else.Delete
I had a very busy day and am late getting into this, but I think its both conservatives and liberals who fail to think things all the way through, both being guided mainly, sometimes solely, by whatever is expedient to the furtherance of their views.Delete
Libertarians tend to stand on principle, and let the chips fall where they may.
The principle in this case being that the government has no authority to dictate the beliefs of individuals, or to compel them to act contrary to those beliefs. ( q.v. The 1st Amendment )
So let me ask this. How do you reconcile a government giving conscientious objector status to someone who refused to take up arms to defend his country on religious grounds, yet wishes to coerce the baker, or florist who refuses to participate in something antithetical to his beliefs?
I'll give Jersey another chance. I normally appreciate his point of view. But there will be no insults directed at the author of this blog. I left grade school many years ago and have no need to converse like a child.ReplyDelete
Possibly of interest: Obama voted for the Illinois Religious Freedom Reformation Act In 1998.ReplyDelete
Oh yeah - and the Clinton's were on board with that too. Just like DOMA.Delete
They'll say they "evolved."
Have you? ;)
Just because they say it doesn't make it so.
Voting blocs trump principles when it comes to politicians.
And CI, grow up. I never called you anything. The SIMPLE FRIGGIN POINT I'm making is you are holding a view right there in common the KKK and these religious morons in Indiana, whether you know it or (apparently) not.ReplyDelete
Really? And I quote "you idiot".Delete
It is not I who should grow up. I understand how a leftist would hold the view, and levy the charge of 'bigotry'......but once again, MY right to MY labor trumps YOUR right to MY labor.
CI: I'd be curious if those who leveled the charge of bigotry against you, and especially of you being a Klansman, were to show any evidence of this. In particularDelete
- racial supremacy of any kind
- belief in racial inferiority
- belief in sex-based supremacy.
dmarks - They'd come up woefully short and revert to generic, stale emotional labels, such as 'bigot' and 'hate'.Delete
That way, they have to prove nothing regarding their assertions and get to feel smugly superior.
"They'd come up woefully short and revert to generic"Delete
Yes. All of these are central to Klan ideology. Let's see Jersey or anyone come up with any examples of expression of these.
So, AGAIN, just where is this "private" business?ReplyDelete
That depends. It's in the market. Oh, I know you'll come back with 'but it's in the 'public!!'.Delete
Does answer my statement.....how do YOU have a right to MY labor?
"Does answer my statement.....how do YOU have a right to MY labor?"Delete
How? Because some think that ignorant, unqualified outsiders armed with deadly force and acting to serve their own self interest (the ruling elites) have a "right" to forcibly steal what is yours and hand it to those who have no right to it or legitimate claim other than that they covet it. And in many cases they are incompetent and lazy and just don't want to bother to make anything themselves.
You can shut your doors and go home whenever you want, but if you do business in the public arena you should not be able to discriminate against members of the public unless it is some personal matter between yourself and the second person. No one has a right to your labor. You can stop working whenever you want. But you can not discriminate in the public sphere. If you want to build a bar in your basement, and have friends over, and none of your friends happen to be black, that's your private business. If you build a bar on the public street and put up a sign that reads "no black people allowed," you should be shut down.Delete
This is a foundation of a civil society. You want to live like an animal in the woods, man.
I'm sure that when dmarks refers to greedy and lazy workers "oinking for a handout" - there is absolutely no hate behind his use of such ugly words. Right.ReplyDelete
Anyway, I agree that you have the right to withhold your labor from anyone you choose... You just shouldn't expect to do so and remain a business open to the public. And, yes, States (when granting liceses) do refer to the Privilege of doing business within their borders. So, you can "feel" any way you choose about what you do with your labor... That does not change the FACT that businesses discriminating is illegal in most states.
BTW, the religious freedom law Obama voted for was designed to protect ACTUAL religious freedoms... As opposed the "right" to discriminate that conservatives desire (debunked by Politifact here).
Oh, I'm well aware of what laws are in place, that's to really up for discussion here, unless you're proffering that any and every standing law is a net good. Unless of course, you "feel" differently about some laws.Delete
And of course, you have to tie it up with yet another stale, generic and blanket pejorative. Right on cue.
Shameless begging for handouts deserves a lot of contempt. in my view. While I have the greatest respect for working people who earn compensation in a fair and consent-based exchange.Delete
Those who are able-boded and want handouts instead of working for it in my view deserve deep condemnation. I will let CI judge if the "oinkers" term is against the rules of this, his blog.
dmarks: Shameless begging for handouts deserves a lot of contempt.ReplyDelete
Agreed. This is why I have contempt for employers who desire handouts from their workers in the form of underpriced labor. It is especially contemptible (and deserving of strong condemnation) when big business oinks for (lobbies) our elected representatives to repeal laws that prevent employers from forcing their workers into giving them these handouts (forcibly stealing from them under the false pretense that the low wage was negotiated between equals).
Underpriced according to whom? Not the market.Delete
Interesting notion that business steals [according not to the market but the State], yet it's not theft when the State taxes and licenses business.
"Underpriced according to whom? Not the market."Delete
Underpriced to ignorant outsiders not directly involved in the deals, who have no authority or legitimate right to do what they do, which is pull random numbers out of thin air and force them on people at gunpoint..
"Interesting notion that business steals'
Not so much a "notion" but a conjuration out of pure imagination and without any regard to meanings of the terms being discussed.
Yes. Quite fascist.
YES, not paying at least a minimum wage is underpriced according to "the market" as "the market" is governed by democratically passed laws. Some believe employers should be able to push wages down and that a large population of wage slaves is desirable (the iron law of wages), but these people are the real fascists.ReplyDelete
The market is governed by the laws of supply and demand. Government regulation is artificial influence. Economics 101...you should look into it.Delete
Note the use of "real fascists" to describe a situation that is rather the opposite: closer to anarchy, and with much LESS of the abusive force of a central government which is a necessary part of fascism.Delete
In that instance, clearly, "fascists" was just use as an insult-word. Pure emotion, not meaning.
It is best to use this term with care toward meeting at least part of the definition (or as much of it as possible), as I always do.
I strongly disagree with and reject your fascist view of what governs the market. The People have the Right to pass laws via their elected representatives to ensure fairness - and that our economy operates in the interest of all... Not just the wealthy. And that is democracy 101. Maybe you should look into it.Delete
How cute...look who's trying to co-opt the term Fascist now.Delete
Can't refute, deflect. Poor debate skills 101. No need to look into it, you've mastered that.
Seriously, look up market forces. Wikipedia even, that's probably your speed. You can 'reject' all you want......you can't refute it, no matter what farcical narrative you attempt to employ.Delete
Of course, I've still been waiting for you to prove your assertion that the 2nd Amendment was 'misinterpreted'.
dmarks :as I always do.Delete
Actually you never do. You continually refer to democracy as fascism and argue that allowing actual fascism to flourish is "liberty". I'm very familiar with dmarks' tendency for doublespeak when he argues in favor of policies designed to further enrich the already wealthy and crush workers.
BTW, I said nothing to indicate that I favor a "command economy". Markets require regulation or the powerful (by virtue of their wealth) and the predators will manipulate things to their advantage. This is common sense. But that is not something I would ever accuse a libertarian of possessing.
Just refute that supply and demand doesn't govern market forces. You also may wish to educate yourself on how a Fascist economy operates....hint: it's far closer to your ideal than mine.Delete
And finally, when you press your staple of how 'democratically passed laws' should trump market forces...you've both stated your opinion that all laws are inherently just....and that you support the Indiana Religious Freedom bill.
Have you made yourself dizzy yet?
Yes, CI. Some support an idea of "democracy" to the point where it means that our personal, private decisions are the purvey of a democratic government.Delete
But then you point out popular ideas they don't like. and watch them run away from their supposed principles...
CI: Just refute that supply and demand doesn't govern market forces.Delete
Why would I do that? Supply, demand and regulations govern the market.
CI: hint... it's far closer to your ideal than mine.
It isn't. Fascism is opposed to socialism. Look it up.
CI: You've both stated your opinion that all laws are inherently just.
That isn't my opinion.
CI: Have you made yourself dizzy yet?
No. Have you? How would the market operate without our system of regulations to provide a framework for and enforce contracts, prevent price manipulation, give employees redress when employers mistreat them, give citizens redress if they are harmed by a corporation, etc, etc.
Yet you argue that these necessary regulations are "interference". An utterly ridiculous argument, as those of us who do not lack common sense realize.
Why would I do that? Supply, demand and regulations govern the market.Delete
But wait....earlier you tried to tell us that "the market is governed by Democratically passed laws". NOW, you are forced to include supply and demand. Interesting.
I'll address your miseducation on Fascism below.
That isn't my opinion.
You've stated repeatedly that Democratically passed laws should rightfully trump both market forces and individual rights....unless you now feel differently.
As the erroneously named Indiana Religious Freedom bill is a Democratically passed law, it must trump market forces and our individual rights, no?
How would the market operate without our system of regulations to provide a framework for and enforce contracts, prevent price manipulation...
The same way that they've historically operated. Supply and demand.
give employees redress when employers mistreat them, give citizens redress if they are harmed by a corporation, etc, etc.
We have the legal system to protect and allow redress. You call the byzantine system of regulations "necessary". Common sense tells us otherwise.
Ha ha ha. You're really stretching. You must be desperate. I never claimed that the market is governed by regulations alone. A less than honest tactic similar to your claim that - because I support the democractic process for passing laws - I must support all laws. Of course there are bad laws. No system is perfect. Although libertarians seem to believe the so-called free market is one such mythical beast.Delete
I'm not the one backtracking and writhing under an ignorance of economics and basic rights.Delete
"How cute...look who's trying to co-opt the term Fascist now. "ReplyDelete
Yes, including yet another use if it to describe a of situation of minimized central government control.
He proved my point on the abuse of the word.
The 1983 American Heritage Dictionary defined fascism as: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism" (source).ReplyDelete
Note the term "business leadership". Fascism is an idealogy opposed to socialism, which encourages more democratic control of the economy. Control by The People, as opposed by control by the wealthy "business leadership".
Both CI and dmarks argue that the market not be under the control of The People. That is bad (democracy) in their opinion. So, if The People aren't in control who is? Since democracy is the only means by which the power of the wealthy can be reigned in, obviously, without it the wealthy "business leadership" will manipulate the market to their advantage.
Again, common sense stuff.
Your textbook definition of Fascism falls short of the economic aspect...by design of course.Delete
A couple of excerpts, and I would encourage to read the entire piece...though I doubt you will.
A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever.
The purpose of this byzantine regulatory arrangement was so that the government could “secure collaboration . . . between the various categories of producers in each particular trade or branch of productive activity.” Government-orchestrated “collaboration” was necessary because “the principle of private initiative” could only be useful “in the service of the national interest” as defined by government bureaucrats.
Many American politicians who have advocated more or less total government control over economic activity have been more devious in their approach. They have advocated and adopted many of the same policies, but they have always recognized that direct attacks on private property, free enterprise, self-government, and individual freedom are not politically palatable to the majority of the American electorate. Thus, they have enacted a great many tax, regulatory, and income-transfer policies that achieve the ends of economic fascism, but which are sugar-coated with deceptive rhetoric about their alleged desire only to “save” capitalism.
You are quite incorrect, both dmarks and myself argue that the market should entirely be under the control of the people. That control is the demand curve of the people and the supply curve of the producers.
CI, you should run for office.Delete
Nope. The skeletons wouldn't all fit on the campaign bus.Delete
CI: both dmarks and myself argue that the market should entirely be under the control of the people.ReplyDelete
The rich people. Not The People as in the citizenry of the United States. Because democracy is the only way the citizenry of the US can stand up to the power of the wealthy elites. You're being sold a bill of goods in regards to this free market mythology.
But you're free to believe whatever fairy tales you like. I can't stop you. Personally, I'm going to pass on the FEE reeducation.
I fully expected you to discard the link.The most scholarly discourse you're injected thus far has been Wiki. We see where your benchmark is.Delete
But I applaud you for maintaining the script. Even in the face of all facts to the contrary, you abide by the narrative without fail.
That's pretty funny coming from someone who sticks as closely to the Libertarian script as you do. Even going so far as to post propaganda from the Foundation for Economic ReEducation to "prove" I don't understand fascism.Delete
And we shouldn't forget that this discussion started with your defense of a business owner's "right" to discriminate... Another example of the Libertarian belief that some people's rights trump other people's rights.
All you have to do....all you ever have to do is refute it in a mature manner. Calling something 'propaganda', misnaming the source [as if your somehow clever] and running away isn't a refutation. You've already proven that you don't understand economics or Fascism, by scoffing that supply and demand govern the market. Then admitting that they do, along with your assertion of 'government regulation'. But without sourcing any reference whatsoever, beyond a single Wiki quote. You don't understand basic economics, or you would have been able to counter my point, were I wrong.Delete
And finally, once again you're incorrect. THIS discussion started with my premise that MY right to MY labor, trumped YOUR right to MY labor. Which you then admitted was correct....now trying to label it 'discrimination'.
CI: ..by scoffing that supply and demand govern the market. Then admitting that they do... But without sourcing any reference whatsoever, beyond a single Wiki quote. ... finally, once again you're incorrect.Delete
None of these things ever happened. I never "scoffed" in regards to the role of supply and demand in the marketplace, never "admitted" they do (which would be impossible, since I never said they didn't), and I never quoted wikipedia (not in this discussion).
Also, I'm not incorrect about you justifying discrimination using the "my right to my labor" argument.
If you are as right as you think you are regarding this subject... What explains your need to mischaracterize everything I've said? And what explains your need to continually inject ad hominem (the latest example being your suggestion that my arguments are not "mature")?
Wow...this is too easy.Delete
None of these things ever happened. I never "scoffed" in regards to the role of supply and demand in the marketplace, never "admitted" they do (which would be impossible, since I never said they didn’t)
Peoples Exhibit A -
Me: The market is governed by the laws of supply and demand. Government regulation is artificial influence.
You: I strongly disagree with and reject your fascist view of what governs the market.
You again: …the market" is governed by democratically passed laws.
You again: Markets require regulation…
Me: Just refute that supply and demand doesn't govern market forces.
You: Supply, demand and regulations govern the market.
Also, I'm not incorrect about you justifying discrimination using the "my right to my labor" argument.
In fact you are incorrect. You don't get to frame My argument, when I have stated my position succinctly. It's up to you to refute it, which you still fail to do. It’s not ‘justifying’ discrimination, it’s justifying the individual right to dispense with one’s labor as one sees fit.
If you are as right as you think you are regarding this subject…
People's Exhibit B -
You: I'lI agree that you have the right to withhold your labor from anyone you choose.
The court rests its case.
Your arguments are not mature, because you have no intellectual foundation for them. They shift with the argument, as you attempt to vainly stay one step ahead of yourself. You offer nothing except the poor attempt to frame the opposition argument into what you'd like it to be, instead of what it is.
Ironically, you have had every opportunity to bring forth a scholarly opposition, based on the merits of the issue. But you’ve chosen not to.
Sad that you’ve wasted so much of your time instead.
Me: I strongly disagree with and reject your fascist view of what governs the market.Delete
Due to your labeling of regulation as an "artificial influence", not due to your inclusion of supply and demand (exclusively). But continue mischaractering what I've said... I'm sure you will.
CI: It's up to you to refute it, which you still fail to do.
I did not fail. I correctly identified your argument as a justification for discrimination. Your framing is based on a lie concerning people having a "right" in spite of all the laws against discrimination.
Because you asked for a scolary article (as if your FEE propaganda qualified as "scholarly") I present the following (Even though I realize I'm wasting my time, given that I'm dealing with a "ineducable rigid ideologue", as dmarks pointed out).
The Case for Regulation. The Failure of Free Market Economics (excerpt) When free market economists describe the ideal as the absence of any regulation of economic behavior, they are asserting that there are no dysfunctional consequences of unregulated economic behavior.
If this were in fact the case, why should this result be confined to economic behavior? Why shouldn’t all human behavior be unregulated? Why is it that economists recognize that robbery, rape, and murder are socially dysfunctional, but not unlimited debt leverage and misrepresentation of financial instruments? The claim, as expressed by Alan Greenspan along with others, that “markets are self-regulating” is an assertion that unrestrained individuals are self-regulating. How did anyone ever believe that? (From an article by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal).
Aside from Lbertarian dupes, I doubt you'll find too many people who believe such nonsense.
I've used your very words in response to my statements....so based on your track record thus far, the next logical step in your plan has to be saying that I'm 'mischaracterizing' your words.Delete
I correctly identified your argument as a justification for discrimination.
Since this discourse has largely been between you and I, and you further use the term 'your' above....you're still incorrect. Because I'm not using my argument as a justification for discrimination. I've been using my argument to assert that I have a right to use and dispense with, my labor as I see fit. It is you who is mischaracterizing my assertion, so you can frame it the way you want it to be. Not mature.
Instead of doing what any child can do...call something a name, why don't you try and be an adult and tell me why you believe FEE is 'propaganda'? Especially when using Paul Craig Roberts as your standard bearer. If you're not familiar with his other work.....now would be a good time to start.
I'll see your article and go back to basic economics...just for you.
The determining of market prices through the dynamic interaction of supply and demand is the basic building block of economics.
But when government adopts a price control, it defines the market price of a product and forces all, or a large percentage, of transactions to take place at that price instead of the equilibrium price set through the interaction between supply and demand. Since supply and demand shift constantly in response to tastes and costs, but the government price will change only after a lengthy political process, the government price will effectively never be an equilibrium price. This means that the government price will be either too high or too low.
Competition is a better tool than price controls for protecting consumers; the Puritans appear to have realized that and gradually ceased using them. As Rockoff writes, “One would expect that as markets grew, producing a smoother flow of information…the need for regulation would have decreased. Indeed, that seems to have happened.”
The imposition of price controls on a well-functioning, competitive market harms society by reducing the amount of trade in the economy and creating incentives to waste resources. Many researchers have found that price controls reduce entry and investment in the long run.
The overwhelming evidence against price controls naturally leads to consideration of other methods of lowering purchasing costs. The private sector uses a number of methods that are both effective and consonant with a market economy. Such approaches, when used by the private market, are much less damaging to economic welfare than a government price control.
Fiona M. Scott Morton is an associate professor of economics and strategy at Yale University.
CI: The use of the word "propaganda" by your would-be debate opponent is utterly without meaning. The only information one can glean from his labeling of extensive well-supported sound arguments as "propaganda" is that he does not like it. That's all.Delete
It's on a level with his "shrieking right" claims and whatever juvenile fixation has caused him to bring (as he loves to do) boners and ass into the conversation.
I said "would be" opponent, as it is clear that he has come here unprepared for serious discussion.
CI... welcome to the world of the ineducable, rigid ideologue.ReplyDelete
Great conversation thread! I know I'm too late, but I wanted to let you know I dropped by.ReplyDelete
Funny how the leftist shrieking over this don't even understand the law, that it is a law on the books in over 20 states, and that it is modeled after the federal law crafted by Dem Chuck Schumer and signed by Democrat Bill Clinton.
But you're bound to look ridiculous when you argue from your doxies and whatever the PC flavor of the day is.
Having said that, I understand and agree with your very sharp and very cogent point: The right of free association and non-coercion must apply to all Americans, regardless of where their beliefs come from.
Unfortunately, in our decrepit and accreted legal system, there is no basic for such a legal argument. These legal debates take place upon the slag piles of accreted bad law (you mentioned precedent), and that is where the combatants must make their stand.
The very fact government has to pass laws restating what is already stated in the constitution is one more symptom of our sickness, but this debate goes all the way back to the Bill of Rights. Federalists thought it was a bad idea to enumerate such rights, since that would lead others to make the case that it was a comprehensive list and use it in a negative way to restrict our other manifold, unenumerated natural rights. Boy were they prescient.
CI: This statement of mine was not directed at you. I directed it specifically to the leftwing screamers in this particular argument. More broadly, it can be applied to any ideologue of any stripe who abandons foundational principles for ideology.
"But you're bound to look ridiculous when you argue from your doxies and whatever the PC flavor of the day is."
I had a very strong feeling it wasn't directed at me!Delete
SF: ...it is modeled after the federal law crafted by Dem Chuck Schumer and signed by Democrat Bill Clinton.ReplyDelete
SF is parroting the shrieking Right's spin designed to deceive the gullible in regards to the intent of the Indiana law. According to Politifact...
Proponents of this law are pushing the measure as a way that businesses can seek protection "for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage." Whether that argument will win in the courts is up for debate. That was far from an intent of Illinois’ law, or the others passed more than 15 years ago.
The purpose of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was to prevent discrimination, where the purpose of the Indiana law is to enable it (which SF spins as "free association and non-coercion").
If bigoted business owners who do not want to freely associate with homos must be coerced into not discriminating - I'm all for it.
The Derviled Egg needs to read the crap he links to:ReplyDelete
In one sense, there isn’t all that much difference between the bill that got Obama’s vote in Illinois 17 years ago and the bill that Pence signed into law last week.
So, Dervhole, can you quote us the section of the law that "enables" discrimination? Put up or shut up.
Put up or shut up? You quoted one sentence that you think makes your case while ignoring the rest of the article. For example (shortly following the portion you quote) the Politifact article notes that "it's how some conservatives want Indiana's law to work that fosters fear among civil rights advocates for how it might".ReplyDelete
That is why Politifact says "half true"... Because, while some of the language may be the same, the intent differs.
BTW Mike Pence "said he would not seek protections based on sexual orientation in Indiana and would not say whether Hoosiers could refuse services to gays or lesbians".
Why not? Because such protections would be contrary to the intent of the Indiana pro discrimination law. Silverfish himself implied Rightwing Christians shouldn't be coerced into associating with homos. If that is not the purpose of the law then what the hell is?
CI hides behind rhetoric concerning his labor while ignoring the effect of denying one's labor to someone he may not choose to associate him. I point out that such logic enables discrimination and he claims I'm reframing his argument. Very dishonest, IMO.
That's what I thought,one more hysterical prog talking out his ass, again.ReplyDelete
The article is opinion and is speaks to "how people might want the law to work," rather than addressing the language and mechanisms of the law itself.
I'm asking you one last time, Derwish, what part of the law authorizes discrimination? If you cannot answer that question, you reveal yourself to be an nothing more than one more more ignorant progressive propaganda vector.
Nothing confuses a leftwing prog like a demand for facts. C'mon, the law is easy to find with a little yahoogling, you can do it. Shout up the basement steps and ask your mom to help you.
This is what I expected Silverfish would do - ignore the question I asked him - because his argument falls apart if he answers it.ReplyDelete
What argument? I haven't made one. But if you insist on playing the childish "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" game, I went back and found what looks like a question from me to you...ReplyDelete
Darvon Sanders asked: If that is not the purpose of the law then what the hell is?
Here is the crux of it, from the law itself, which it is clear you have not read, or if you did, you did not comprehend the words:
a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Government must have a compelling interest if it is to burden someone's exercise of their religion.
Nowhere in any law, including this one, can a coffee shop owner find legal refuge when he bars gays from his place of business.
Now, answer my question:
What part of the law authorizes discrimination?
silver: more and more this discussion looks like a classroom with one kindergartner and a bunch of college professors. And the kindergartner is cranky and throwing stuff because he hasn't had his nap yet.Delete
Silverfiddle has asked: What part of the law authorizes discrimination?ReplyDelete
I am receiving comment notification and hoping to see a cogent answer.
He's starting to call gay people "homos", while those he accuse of anti-gay bigotry have yet to show it, AOW. Cogent? Nahhh.Delete
dmarks: Thanks. I feel silly trying to argue with a lunatic.ReplyDelete
AOW: You won't see a cogent answer from that one.
I will be blogging on this topic Thursday at Western Hero. I'm done talking to the dog.
I will be blogging on this topic Thursday at Western Hero. I'm done talking to the dog.
I'll be there! If the home front here has settled down, that is.
SF: I will try to make sure to set up an account to go there. You keep Western Hero trollfree, right?ReplyDelete
You don't need an account. We use Disqus there, but you can post as a guest without having to make an account.
I recommend everyone get a Disqus account since so many on-line forums have gone to it.
We get all kinds posting there. I enjoy it when we have a diversity of commenters. We do have a pretty good filter system set up, so the slobberiest of the slobs usually get filtered out. You can be a howling leftwing moonbat and post at Western Hero so long as you avoid profanity.
You can still sign in with your Google (Blogger) ID as well as making "Guest" comments. Discus isn't a gatekeeper it just helps keep the conversation civilized.Delete
A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only...Delete
Burden them by requiring them to not discriminate. BTW, MANY articles can be found via Google that contend that the intent of this law is to enable discrimination. These are a bunch of delusional authors according to Silverfish?
dmarks constant ad hominem is tiresome. Apparently kissing CI's ass and/or hurling ad hominem is ALL he is able to contribute.
As for my use of the word homo, I only used it in the context of talking about discriminating business owners. For example, I said "If bigoted business owners who do not want to freely associate with homos must be coerced into not discriminating - I'm all for it". Calling a gay person a "homo" is something I'd imagine a bigot doing (Silverfish is someone I can imagine calling gay people "homos").
In regards to arguing with lunatics, that is how I feel commenting on this blog.
I'm through with you, dingus. Bring your idiotic ravings to Western Hero on Thursday if you want to argue further. We always love a good laugh.Delete
CI: I'm giving you a hat tip in the blog post.
I'm giving you a hat tip in the blog post.Delete
Much appreciated! I'll try and stop by, but it's difficult being six hours ahead of EDT [I'm still in Europe] and I can't access any Blogger site from my .mil domain at work.
From one of Dervish Sanders' comments on my blog, from Dec. 26 2013.ReplyDelete
"Roughly ____ felt a bearded face brush up against his cheek. Then ____ got the surprise of his life as the tounge of another entered his mouth. Opening his eyes ____ stared straight into the face of Santa, clearly delivering JUST the gift ____ had been wishing for. "My goodness, Santa, it seems you are quite happy to see me" ____ remarked, feeling a poke from down below that he presumed was the erect w@ng of old Saint Nick. "Indeed I am, ____" Santa growled. Tossing back the covers revealed a nude ____, which is how he always slept. ____ cast his eyes downward, and although Santa was fully clothed, he noted with great delight that the very prominent Johnson of Santa was protruding through an open zipper. "Now flip over" Santa commanded, and ____ did as he was told. Quickly Santa entered the quivering ____ from behind (in his behind). Waves of pleasure washed over him as ____ and Santa grunted in unison. "Here is another gift for you" Santa exclaimed as his on Merry Christmas."
Well, it has long been clear that W. Dervish has very strong feelings on this and related subjects. This past comment, which Mr. Sanders has repeatedly stood behind, is relevant to Mr. Sander's strange obsessions.
....Weirdly conflicted feelings, as he repeatedly calls gay people the bigoted slur beginning with "H", while only giving a weak caveat of falsely claiming that Silver said it instead.
This comment which Dervish left is visible on my blog, connected to his actual blogger ID, for anyone to see if they ask to be approved for the blog. I've changed the names of those involved except for mythical beings. I have also only shown a mere fraction of what he wrote at this point.
Wow. That is the work of a mentally-ill sexual pervert grappling with his sexuality, and perhaps his humanity as well.Delete
Thank you for bringing this forward. It explains much
Silver said: "Wow. That is the work...."Delete
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Silver: For much of 2013, I was getting several of these a day. This was one of the longest, most graphic, however.ReplyDelete
A provable (with your own words) dishonesty. Previously you claimed I sent you "dozens over the space of a couple of weeks.... from Feb 18 to March 4". Now the timeframe has expanded (greatly) to "most of 2013". But these kind of tall tales are par for the course with dmarks.Delete
The "Feb 18 to March 4" was Dervish' initial spurt of penis comments alone. If I recall correctly, the count was 38 then. All sitting in the blogger spam holder.... hardly a "tall tale". The lengthy gay sex compositions continued through the year after this..especially around Christmas, including Dervish' original composition, quoted above, and exactly as Dervish wrote it (other than replacing names with ____ and my choosing not to print the whole thing). Hardly off topic after Dervish kept going in about what he alone, and no one else here and no one he else he could accurately claim) called "homos".Delete
If it had been me, I would not have sent hundreds of messages to multiple blogs after I had been banned from them. If it were me, I'd apologize for such. And if it were me, I'd never even come close to accusing Silverfiddle of using anti gay slurs as Dervish has done. And if it were me, I'd never use that word anyway unless in an actual quote about the specific abuse of the slur.
Anyway, Dervish's material can be seen on my blog by anyone approved to see it. I will even approve Dervish if he apologizes for this and the death threats and promises to do no more.
Speaking of apologies, how about dmarks apologizing for accusing me of supporting "sex crimes against children", being an "apologist and supporter of domestic violence", that Osama Bin Laden and Stalin are both my heroes, that I defended Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views, that I sent him an email containing "antisemitic crap", that "those like WD" "speak with one voice alongside the terrorists", that I "cheered on Hamas", and that I have a problem with "deep-seated racism and prejudice"...Delete
Just to cite a few examples. These are just a sampling of the vile accusations dmarks has, on MANY occasions, lobbed at me. All comments made on under his actual Blogger ID and visible on various blogs (mainly Will Hart's). All accusations that are completely baseless (BTW) and made in response to political disagreements. Proof of dmarks' inability to engage in honest mature debate.
As for Silverfish using anti-gay slurs, look at his reaction to what dmarks posted... I think his comment provides a window into how he might feel about gay people.
BTW, I can't promise to "do no more" in regards to the "death threats" given the fact they are as fictional as the "rape threats" you claimed I sent you (on the PE blog). I don't wish you any harm, dmarks. I think you need to seek psychiatric help (in regards to your many delusions) and get well.Delete
Dervish and dmarks - take your longstanding beef elsewhere. Further comments on this matter, regardless of the author, will be deleted.Delete
I tried to do that (by linking to my response elsewhere instead of publishing it here), but dmarks persisted.Delete
If I was a gay individual getting married, the last thing that I would want to do is chow down a cake that was baked by somebody who hated my guts.......And in this day and age, a business that blatantly discriminated against gay people would probably go OUT of business very quickly and, so, yes, the market definitely does work (wd's protestations, not withstanding).ReplyDelete
And yet there is several actual cases in which this very thing happened. Except for the guts hating part. According to what I've heard, the Pennsylvania bakery sold to the lesbian couple before and only objected when asked for a wedding cake. These fundamentalist types usually claim that they "hate the sin but not the sinner". I know this because I'm related to one.Delete
Sounds like Will thinks people being discriminated against should just take it... because the business will likely suffer for discriminating and they wouldn't want the cake anyway. But they should have no other redress. Although the couple that filed the lawsuit against Oregon's Sweet Cakes was awarded 150k. The "market" would have awarded them nothing.
I don't know that it's necessiarly true that the business will go out of business however (especially if protected by a law such as that in Indiana). Bigots might flock to the establishment to show support - as they did in the case of Chick-fil-A (which hasn't gone out of business).
As for dmarks' less-than-honest and off topic comment, I won't respond here (due to his rant being off-topic). I did compose a reply, however, which anyone who is interested can read here.
I don't often agree with Mike Huckabee but I think that he actually made a good point when he differentiated between people coming into your store for service (which he agrees that that should be allowed) and you, as a business owner, being compelled to go to a gay wedding to take photographs or cater it when you have a religious objection to doing so (which he does not support). Yes, it's a compromise position (somewhere between you and CI) but a fair one, I submit.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
In reference to Dervish' claims that Chick Fil A is still in business despite bring bigoted..well, they have chosen to serve AND employ gay people. Quite different from the anti-gay baker example he tried to equate this to... and failed to do so.ReplyDelete
Now you're contradicting what Will wrote. He wondered why any gay person would want to be served by (or work for, in your example) a bigoted business when they knew the establishment in question "hated their guts" (or thinks their "lifestyle" is wrong).Delete
And remember that the bigots turned out in force to support Chick-Fil-A's bigotry.
In any case, I never "equated". I brought up an example of a business that expressed anti-gay views. Or their CEO did. And he has not changed his views. The anti-gay baker also served gay customers (only refusing to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple).
I support gay marriage as strongly as you do, wd, but to call everybody who opposes gay marriage as a bigot (which would have included Obama until recently) is very unfair, I think.Delete
And I stand by my comment because it's how I feel. I would NOT want to eat a cake made by a person who despises me and would instead seek out a much more enlightened baker of which there are undoubtedly many in the current society.Delete
The discussion concerned discrimination, not marriage. As for Obama, he always supported marriage equality. However, as a representative, he realized the country wasn't ready for him to endorse it.Delete
As for there being many bakeries... What about in small communities? There are not always multiples of any particular type of business... Depending on where you live.
And why should a gay couple not be able to simply walk into a business and expect service? You're endorsing "separate but equal"? Black folks shouldn't have wanted to eat at the lunch counters of the establishment owners who "hated their guts"?
Yesterday in Arkansas: Arkansas Legislators Approve Their Own Religious Freedom Bill.ReplyDelete
And just as in Indiana, two things happened: the Governors each stated that the bills needed to be 'clarified'; and many of the virulently anti-gay proponents of the bills publicly called out each for "caving".Delete
dmarks: It's a quick descent into madness, isn't it?ReplyDelete
Uncle Mike Savage is right: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I get your point, Silver. But I have seen just as bad from the right. The problems seen here go way beyond the "Yeah Team!!" rah-rah of left vs right, (D) vs (R), in my view.ReplyDelete
This just in...ReplyDelete
Memories Pizza, a restaurant owned by the O'Connor family, is the first business in Indiana to publicly come forward in support of Indiana's new controversial and discriminatory "religious freedom" law. Memories Pizza's owners claim they have a right to protect their religious beliefs - and thereby deny service to people among the LGBT community. (Source).
That's odd, given that Silverfish insisted this legislation would not enable discrimination against the homos - as Silverfish might refer to gay people (something that I have yet to see him deny that he does).
And here is an admission from a sponsor of one of these pieces of legislation that the purpose of the bill is to enable discrimination...
...social conservatives are openly striving for a world where they can opt out of civil rights law that they object to on religious grounds. ...some lawmakers have been quite explicit about the fact that this is their goal. Around the same time that Indiana's new law was making its way toward Pence’s desk, the Georgia legislature considered a similar law. During debate on the bill, Rep. Mike Jacobs, a Republican who supports gay rights, introduced an amendment explicitly providing that the Georgia bill could not be used to overcome anti-discrimination provisions at the state and local level. The amendment was staunchly opposed by the bill’s sponsor, who complained that protecting victims of discrimination would “completely undercut the purpose of the bill”. (Source).
So there you have it. Conservatives like Silverfish can continue to dissemble on the matter, but the fact is the purpose of these so-called "religious freedom" bills is to enable discrimination.
Remember what happened when the SCOTUS struck down (a portion) of the voting rights act? Many Southern states rushed to pass legislation intended to disenfranchise Black people. GOP = party of the racists (by and large. I acknowledge that there are racists and bigots in both parties, but the GOP is the only one that specifically panders to them for votes).
discrimination against the homos - as Silverfish might refer to gay people (something that I have yet to see him deny that he does).Delete
You whine on your site about not being an "appreciated commenter"....yet display an irrational and seemingly reflexive propensity for being unable to discuss an issue without including some sort of personal attack. That speaks directly to maturity.
Your statement was a straw man and a fools argument. Unless you have prove that Silverfiddle used the pejorative in question, then all you've done is illustrate that you cannot engage in mature discourse.
Huh. What about Silverfish calling me by a variety of differing names including "dingus"? I only bring it up in response to your false accusation (again) of me not being able to engage in mature discourse. For the most part I've been ignoring dmarks', Silverfish's and YOUR personal attacks.Delete
As for whining, my only point was that you probably wouldn't want me and dmarks bringing our "long standing beef" to your site. Something I was RIGHT about.
Hey Ding Dong Dervish,Delete
Some idiot could do whatever and then cite some law for their action.
Laws do not prevent adverse actions; they are used to decide the legality/illegality of actions. Mr and Mrs Pizza will be either charged by the state with a civil rights violation or they will be sued by the first homosexual couple that tries to eat at their restaurant.
Next, they will have to prove in a court of law that the government adversely impinged upon their religious liberties. Based upon the criteria in the law, they will lose.
If you had actually read the law, you would know that already.
Now go back to snorting prozac in your mama's basement
I've also heard (in addition to him calling gay men homos) that Silverfiddle hasn't paid taxes in 10 years and am asking him to prove that he has.Delete
Will: Mr Sanders likes to make up a lot of things... including his most recent allegation of Silver's being an "anti-gay bigot" in the long whine he posted just now.....Delete
I guess he is hoping some will stick. Thing is, it rarely does.
GOT = party of the racists? Not as bad as the Democrats, who strongly and explicitly support racism in hiring decisions (and oppose a fair, level playing field where all are treated the same)Delete
(Above = GOP)Delete
dmarks: Not as bad as the Democrats, who strongly and explicitly support racism in hiring decisions (and oppose a fair, level playing field where all are treated the same).Delete
The Democrats strongly support fairness and strongly oppose racism. You can CLAIM whatever you want, but just because dmarks claims it does not make it so.
Like when you claimed that the Southern Strategy was the Republicans "then and now push[ing] for a level playing field". Despite the fact that the first Repub president to employ it said the purpose of it was so "Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans".
dmarks defends GOP vote-pandering strategies as he defends GOP homophobic enabling legislation.
(Above = racist GOP vote-pandering strategies)Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
The Democrats strongly oppose fairness in hiring and strongly favor racism. "Affirmative Action" policies, which make the playing field much less level, and treat African Americans as inferior. damaged beings is a perfect example of this. This is a form of racism supported by most Democrats, and opposed by most Republicans. It has nothing to do with my "claims": the truth is written into the racist Affirmative Action policies which explicitly demand discrimination.Delete
This is relevant to this discussion. You are a major HYPOCRITE if you strongly favor businesses punishing people for having the wrong skin color ("Affirmative Action"), while being against businesses punishing people for being gay.
I guess you are picking and choosing what sort of bigot you want to be.
"Many Southern states rushed to pass legislation intended to disenfranchise Black people."Delete
Another false claim made here. This didn't happen at all. However, they DID pass laws to prevent the crime of election fraud: fake votes and other crimes... entirely without regard to the skin color of the fake voter.
dmarks: ...they DID pass laws to prevent the crime of... fake votes ... entirely without regard to the skin color of the fake voter..Delete
And yet the (intended) effect was the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters. Far more legitimate voters were stopped from casting ballots than fake voters stopped.
For example, "Around 600,000 registered Texas voters don’t have one of the limited forms of ID that the law allows, according to evidence presented in the legal challenge to the law, which was brought by civil rights groups and the Justice Department. The state did almost nothing to challenge that assessment. That means there's no doubt whatsoever that the law disenfranchised legitimate voters. (source).
Note that "the state did almost nothing to challenge that assessment". Why wouldn't they challenge it? Because the intention of the law was to prevent legitimate voters from casting ballots. There is your election fraud. Election fraud that disenfranchises a lot of minority voters... And election fraud that dmarks supports.
dmarks: You are a major HYPOCRITE if you strongly favor businesses punishing people for having the wrong skin color ("Affirmative Action")...
I support Affirmative Action because, as MLK said "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro". dmarks ignores the something special society has done against Black people (racist discrimination) and pretends the playing field is level... When it is tilted in favor of Whites (a pretending that enables racism and is therefore itself racist).
Affirmative Action is an (admitedly imperfect) attempt to undo some of the damage of racism and bring us closer to a level playing field.
Which is why many racist individuals (whom dmarks sides with) oppose Affirmative Action... They like it that Whites have the advantage.
Which brings us to the Indiana pro-gay-discrimination law that dmarks supports... Looks like he's pickingu and choosing what sort of bigot he wants to be (an all-around bigot in his case, given his preference of discriminating against all minorities).
Sourcing something to MSNBC is exactly as laughable as sourcing something to Fox News.Delete
You support affirmative action because you have racist views and don't want people to be treated equally and fairly.
After all, Dr King himself said
"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Affirmative action negates what Dr. King wanted.
"Which is why many racist individuals (whom dmarks sides with) oppose Affirmative Action"
Whether or not racists oppose it, I oppose it because it is explicitly racist.
"When it is tilted in favor of Whites "
That is a flat-out lie. I oppose all forms of PRO white racism also.
"Affirmative Action is an (admitedly imperfect) attempt to undo some of the damage of racism and bring us closer to a level playing field."
It tilts the playing field on purpose. This can't be denied. It doesn't undo any damage of racism, and adds new racism.
I can say I oppose ALL forms of racism and racial discrimination. Too bad Mr. Sanders cant say the same.
According to Al Jazeera (not Fox News) there were a few hundred who had problems voting in Texas. Not 600,000Delete
This includes the closely-watched race " Pete Gallego, the incumbent Democrat, and his Republican challenger, Will Hurd"... in which there was just one voter ID related question/problem. Just one.
Overall, the problem a tiny amount of voters had was largely blamed on the government not doing a good enough job about educating people on the new law.
Also, I reject the racist assertion that these legitimate efforts to stop voter fraud target blacks. For that to be true, one would assume (which I never would do) that blacks are too stupid to get an ID, and that it is mostly blacks who are engaged in voter fraud crimes so they are the only ones to be effected.
Finally, Mr. Sander's claim that I have "a preference of discriminating against all minorities" is a flat-out lie, no less of one than his claim that Silver calls gays "homos". Not only is there no evidence in this discussion, there is none in any discussion. And there is overwhelming proof to the contrary.Delete
You indeed are living up to C.I.'s correct summary he made by insisting that I am racist with absolutely no evidence
Even your attempts backfire when they show that you are racist on "affirmative action", Mr. Sanders, and I am not in the least bit that way.
dmarks: You support affirmative action because you have racist views and don't want people to be treated equally and fairly.Delete
I'm White. According to the dictionary, racism is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races". Yet you (laughably) claim that I'm racist toward my own race (not "another race" as per the definition).
And I think it is quite dishonest of you to attempt to invalidate the quote by King that had him saying "...society ...must now do something special for the Negro" by quoting his "content of their character" speech. The later does not invalidate the former. He was speaking of the ideal. Of course it would be preferable to only judge people by the content of their character, but many people do NOT.
It will be a great day when racism is extinguished, but we aren't there yet. Therefore "...society [should continue to] do something special for the Negro". I believe this not because I'm racist (against White people, which isn't even racism according to the definition), but because I agree with MLK that actions are necessary to help right the wrongs of racism.
dmarks, on the other hand, thinks that he can simply pretend racism does not exist and that African Americans are not still being discriminated against. That, or he appreciates his White privilege and wants it to continue (for him and other Whites for as long as possible). Meaning that he either enables racism or is racist himself.
dmarks: Affirmative action negates what Dr. King wanted.
Dr. King: "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro". Affirmative Action helps society move toward what Dr. King wanted.
I can say I oppose racism and racial discrimination. Too bad dmarks - given his strong support for White privilege - can't honestly say the same.
dmarks: You indeed are living up to C.I.'s correct summary he made by insisting that I am racist with absolutely no evidence. ..there no evidence in this discussion, there is none in any discussion.Delete
Unfortunately for dmarks I have extensively documented his racist proclivities and can show many examples in a multitude of discussions. Not only his comments in this thread (attempting to use quotes to misrepresent how MLK might have felt about Affirmative Action. Falsely claiming that Affirmative Action "adds new racism", support for the Southern Strategy, etc) but in other discussions on other blogs. (See this link for extensive evidence of dmarks' strong racial biases).
dmarks: According to Al Jazeera (not Fox News) there were a few hundred who had problems voting in Texas. Not 600,000.
Funny that dmarks finds Al Jazeera to be a reliable source. That he does probably has more to do with him agreeing with the article author, as opposed to him thinking Al Jazeera is non-biased.
In any case, according to the Al Jazeera article dmarks linked to, "Dana DeBeauvoir, the county clerk [said] I also think there's a shaming factor. People who have ID problems have been so belittled that they're embarrassed to talk about it".
That, or the people who didn't have the appropriate ID also were too busy working and thus didn't have the time to devote to gathering the needed documents (or didn't have the money to pay for them). That dmarks says I think "that blacks are too stupid to get an ID" (and I am therefore racist) was likely not a factor. Stupidity, at least. Otherwise intelligent people can become confused and give up when presented with the challenge of jumping through hoops to obtain documents.
The article says, "it did not appear that people were being turned away from the polls in droves" but that does not take into account people who may not have bothered showing up because they knew (or feared) they would be turned away. This article dealt only with people who reported problems and NOT people who gave up (for whatever reason).
Why make it harder for people to vote (600k potentially according to the MSNBC article that dmarks dishonestly attacks by using the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger as opposed to the message) when voter fraud is such an insignificant problem?
According to the article dmarks linked to (again) one voter was forced to waste time "waiting in line for several hours at the Department of Public Safety [to] obtain an ID...". That voter was 61 (and retired) and was able to wait in line for hours. What about people who did not have the time to stand in line (because they had to be at work or watching their kids)?
The bottom line is that dmarks uses irrational fears of "voter fraud" to disenfranchise legitimate voters. Or he gullibly buys into these fears being peddled by the GOP for partisan gain. Real democracy (which dmarks opposes) involves maximizing (not minimizing) voter turnout.
Instead dmarks rails against the (virtually) non-existent problem of "voter fraud". Or he believes that this is the problem that the GOP wishes to address with their oppressive voter disenfranchisement laws... when it isn't. The actual problem they wish to address is that there are too many people casting their ballots who are inclined vote for Democrats.
I've made my case. You so far have made none, and in fact have even insisted on and supported racist policies. Let's move on.Delete
Sure, we should "move on" AFTER you've incorrectly summarized the discussion thus far. Including incorrectly stating you oppose racism while still supporting discrimination and White privilege. And while lying about me not making a case. You may disagree with my case, but I still made one. A dishonest and immature debating tactic for sure. But typical for dmarks.Delete
"white privilege" ... an illegitimate and racist concept, very similar to the belief that all blacks are criminals. As someone who is not a racist, I reject all of it, and judge on the content of character, not color of skin.Delete
I not only "disagree", but I completely reject your repeated smears of me as a racist, which remain exactly as hollow as your claim of Silver calling people "homo"
The only case you made was your own racism.
I would say denying the existence of White privilege is something a racist would do. Like how the KKK presents itself as "Christian". Racists usually don't like it when others tell the truth about them and usually always dissemble about their positions in order to fool the gullible.Delete
And I never claimed Silverfish called people "homos". I would not be surprised if he did, however. We do know dmarks has referred to black youths as "thugs" and "violent felons" though.
"We do know dmarks has referred to black youths as "thugs" and "violent felons" though."Delete
Which is not only a lie, but like the link to your fan blog above, very much against what C.I. said about not doing this. Get that long standing beef back in your pants, Mr. Dervish.
Now you're making things up (no, wait, you've been doing that all along). But CI said don't bring your beef here. He said nothing about linking elsewhere. Although I don't have any "fan" blogs. Certainly not one for you. And the beef being brought here began with you and your promotion of your fan blog (by which I mean your old blog, which you shut down in order to dedicate it to me).Delete
CI said: ""Dervish and dmarks - take your longstanding beef elsewhere. Further comments on this matter, regardless of the author, will be deleted."Delete
I think linking to an irrelevant fan page that you made in order to completely fail to make the point that I am racist counts as that.
I don't agree. And the non-fan page I linked to made my point in spades. In any case, dmarks continues bringing the beef - in that he continues to respond in a futile attempt to deny his past racist comments are racist.Delete
BTW, did Silverfish become a "WD fan" by requesting and being accepted to view your WD fan blog? You know, the fan blog when you set up as a shrine to our long standing beef? I wonder how many members there are of dmarks' WD fan blog?Delete
I won't answer and further your whining bromance, because the blog host requested that we don't continue this.Delete
I for one have manners, and will not come into another's blog and make a mess. Especially when the host tells me not to.
dmarks forgets he is the one who started the mess by bringing his beef here - even though when he tried it before (on the PE blog) he was told (then as now) not to. But dmarks is quite lacking in manners in that regard.Delete
But I see that dmarks has run back to Will Hart's blog to whine and spin more of his unreality about me there. Given that Will enjoys and appreciates dmarks disregard for the truth. In fact he shares dmarks enthusiasm when it comes to "wd fan" comments and commentaries.
I don't think I want to hear about anyone'sReplyDelete
but anyway I hope we can entirely dispense with using nasty anti gay slurs unless they are actually something someone said somewhere.
Dervish got his facts wrong. Here is the story on the pizzaria, from HuffPo:ReplyDelete
dmarks: I hope we can entirely dispense with using nasty anti gay slurs unless they are actually something someone said somewhere.ReplyDelete
I find it interesting that the Silverfish has not simply stated that he would not use such a slur. Instead dmarks feels the need to defend him. Not because he knows the Silverfish isn't an anti-gay bigot hiding behind BS Rightwing spin concerning the law not enabling bigotry, but because he saw an oppurtiny to attack someone he disagrees with politically.
Someone who has been consistent in his defense of the Right of gay people to not be discriminated against. Whereas dmarks sided with those who argued that discrimination would be OK... based on Libertarian "logic" concerning a person's "right" for their labor not be sold to CERTAIN people. Interesting that these Libertarians ignore what the end result of such "logic" is (which is that it enables bigotry).
Apparently accusing someone of "snorting prozac in your mother's basement" is OK with dmarks, however. Even though the "mother's basement" slur is a common way to referring to someone as a loser. Proof that dmarks is just fine with some slurs, providing they are directed at some he dislikes.
It isn't as if I said anything to suggest I've ever done such a thing. Perhaps "snorting Prozac" is an activity Silverfish engages in? I know absolutely nothing about such activities, never having used any kind of drug to get high (if that is what snorting Prozac accomplishes).
Silverfish: Dervish got his facts wrong.
Silverfish, do you read the articles you link (or "linke" to)? I see nothing that says I "got my facts wrong". I did find it interesting that the bigoted Pizzeria owner repeats the well worn lie about sexual orientation being a choice, however.
Silverfish: Mr and Mrs Pizza will be either charged by the state with a civil rights violation.
Silverfish got his facts incredibly wrong. Indiana has no laws protecting the civil rights of gay people. As Slate points out: "...discrimination is perfectly lawful in most circumstances. The Constitution protects us from only certain types of discrimination and only at the hands of the government itself. The baseline of American law is actually that private employers can pick and choose the people they want to hire and fire based on good, bad, or irrelevant reasons, including discriminatory ones. Businesses can do the same when deciding which people to serve; schools and landlords with the people they educate or rent to.
In order for a state or the federal government to carve out exceptions to this general rule, that government has to pass a law that does so. Federal law, for example, removes race, religion, national origin, and sex from being the basis for employment decisions for all employers over a particular size. .... But unlike these other categories, sexual orientation is not universally carved out as an unlawful form of discrimination."
So, apparently according to Dervish above, it is OK for him to lie about Silver calling gays "homos" because Dervish's feelings were hurt by the Prozac joke.... which came AFTER Dervish accused Silver several times.Delete
You can't argue with logic like that. Well, fir one thing, it's not logic. I suppose then that every lie of Dervish' from now in is justified as a response to a future insult which might come.
I wonder when Dervish stopped beating his gay lover?Delete
Of course you cannot discriminate in Ohio. Federal civil rights laws prohibit it.
As for the rest of it, Dervish must suffer under the fooling notion I care what he thinks.
a long, mournful complaint or lamentation; a list of woes.
dmarks: So, apparently according to Dervish above, it is OK for him to lie about Silver calling gays "homos" because Dervish's feelings were hurt...ReplyDelete
According to what I wrote above? Where is the quote? You can't quote where I "lie about Silver calling gays homos" because this never happened. I said I could imagine it might be a slur someone like him would use.
Above he states I am gay, as if that is a horrible thing. That is after he complains about being forced to "associate" with people he does not wish to associate with (in a discussion about discrimination against gay people).
That, and his continued dishonesty concerning Federal Laws prohibiting discrimination against gay people strongly suggests to me that he is quite likely anti-gay. Plus the fact that he has yet to deny this.
And I never asked for "proof" (as Will suggests I did above... by making an invalid comparison with Harry Reid asking for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns).
Nothing Silverfish said "hurt my feelings".
Silverfish: Of course you cannot discriminate in Ohio. Federal civil rights laws prohibit it.
As far as discrimination based on sexual orientation in the private sector goes, this is categorically false. Federal laws protect people from discrimination by the government on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. There is no federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by a private sector entity. Various states have such laws on the books, but Indiana is does not.
It seems you complain about one (imagined) woe at a time. Are you preparing a list? I predict dmarks' jeremiad will include a complaint concerning me never sending him a "weinergram" (something he obsessed over for literally YEARS).
Mr. Dervish said:ReplyDelete
I refuse to gnaw old bones, Mr. Sanders. I will instead remind you of the comment in which C.I. told us to knock this off. Both of us. I immediately complied. It's a good idea. I have not made any related comments since he made this very clear request, and nor will I.
"Dervish and dmarks - take your longstanding beef elsewhere. Further comments on this matter, regardless of the author, will be deleted."
I will, though. mention your ridiculous assertion that I am racist toward African-Americans. This is because you made it in this discussion on this comment. It is very false. .
Let's stick to facts, and again I have no problem keeping long standing beef out of it.