Alright, someone lay down a logical case for abolishing the anti discrimination laws. This I gotta hear...
I laid it out in the very first post. "No private party should ever be forced to serve everyone who darkens their door, for any reason. It's legislating morality, in violation of basic human rights; pure and simple." I and others have expanded on that throughout this thread. But you insist that your moral view should be forced on everyone, violating their rights of property and association.
Here's how it is, 280. You don't have a right to enter another person's property. You don't have a right to make someone sell you something; be it a product, service, or otherwise. You don't have a right to work any place you want to. Neither white people, nor Black people, nor Christian people, nor homosexual people, nor anyone else has such rights.
Like I said, this isn't about religion or homosexuality. This is about freedom.
And finally, you can stop patting your back about how "cool" you are with the lesbians. Do you know why? Because I'm even cooler than you. Do you know how cool I am? Unlike you, I have firm moral convictions about homosexuality. But that's not the cool part. The cool part is that, despite my moral convictions, I can work with lesbians, too. Heck, I can even work with racists, and I don't like that sort of thing either.
The cool thing, is that I can understand the differences between two things. So I know that business transactions aren't usually a form of moral approval. I also know the difference between fixing someone's leaky faucet, and taking photos of their homosexual wedding-type-thingy. I also know the difference between my moral obligation to treat persons of different races equally, and my legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, even if that reason is race or sexual orientation.
Y'all are both right. And the two correctnesses have a pretty big area of overlap.
I am reminded of the stories from the civil rights era when studies were done where black soldiers would be told that no housing was available in a given area but that same white soldiers were shown several places of residence to choose from.
280plus says that he doesn't want to go back to that sort of thing. I agree.
Fistful says that, as a businessman, he shouldn't be told by the gov't who his clients will be. I agree with this too.
I believe that when the liberty of the individual comes into conflict with the liberty of the corporate entity that the liberty of the individual should come first.
Writing this post I keep having thoughts relating to this decision being proper and consistent with current NM law, but this thread isn't about that, it (this thread) is about the properness of the NM law.
I think that such laws are unfortunately necessary to preserve the freedom and liberty of individuals. Is this at the expense of corporate entities? Yes. But said entities have demonstrated time and time again that these laws are indeed needed to prevent the excesses seen in the civil rights era. Common decency shouldn't need to be legislated, but then again, a case at SCOTUS regarding 2A as an individual right shouldn't be needed either.
So as long as your "freedoms" are intact it's ok to crap all over the freedoms of others?
You keep trotting out this same ridiculous argument, that refusing to enter a business transaction with someone is somehow a violation of their rights. It ain't so.
So if every single business decided to stop having business transactions with you for reasons unrelated to the business transaction you would be supportive of this and happily starve to death naked on the street?
