Before 2012.
No lunch for Huckabee, Is it the same?
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
Before 2012.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
A few observations.
1. As a general principle, I believe that if someone opens a 'public accommodation' business this implies an obligation not to discriminate against certain groups in the provision of goods/services.
2. There are exceptions to the above, but I don't believe that they involve benign, immutable characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. (Benign meaning that they are characteristics that have no implications for any second party, immutable meaning that they are inherent traits that are determined by birth or beyond a person's control.)
3. To the extent there are exceptions, I believe that they would entail non-benign, non-immutable, behavioral based characteristics, such as outward expression of ideas/beliefs that are dangerous, harmful, truly offensive, or that an owner/proprietor finds morally objectionable. For example, if a bunch of skinhead me-Nazis flouting swastikas enter a restaurant, I believe the owner is in his/her right to refuse them service.
4. For goods/services that are of a highly specialized/customized nature, I believe that owners/proprietors have more leeway to refuse service. For example, an attorney should not be compelled to take the case of someone he/she finds morally repugnant, say a neo-Nazi. I have mixed feelings about the cake case, but in the end, I believe that the baking of a cake like that IS a form of artistic expression and thus the baker shouldn't be compelled to put messages on the cake he/she finds morally objectionable. We can debate about whether homosexuality is immoral. IF, however, the gay couple was requesting an off-the-shelf cake, and the baker had refused to serve them, then I'd feel much differently.
5. I come down on the side that the owner should just have served Huckabee. However, to me, this comes under #3 above such that the owner should not be compelled to serve her. Shilling for a lying, proto authoritarian who is a purveyor of hate is neither a benign or immutable characteristic. Were it me, I'd still serve her.
6. We will save ourselves a lot of anxiety and stress if we accept that humans by their nature are inconsistent and that few people truly live by a set of consistent principles, other than the principle to seek advantage over others, privilege one's own interests and beliefs, and apply 'principles' on a case-by-case basis as is convenient. Thus we have on one hand the Evangelical Christians arguing that they should, on moral (pseudo) religious grounds, get refuse service and human dignity to others they find objectionable but on the other hand possessors of an over weaning persecution complex who would howl and cry to no end were they every to find themselves on the other side of the 'morally objectionable' discrimination.
7. I find it fascinating how in DC politicos and pundits put more value in 'civility' than in 'decency.' So the Red Hen will draw the ire among Republicans for an act of incivility, but the same Republicans will overlook over and over and over again acts of indecency by this Administration, such as separating children from parents as either an political ploy, a cynical sop to a political base, and/or out of sheer malice. I do agree that civility is important, and I'd like to see more of it, but more than that, I'd like to see more decency and people on both sides of the aisle ready to promote more decency and condemn indecency when it occurs.
1. As a general principle, I believe that if someone opens a 'public accommodation' business this implies an obligation not to discriminate against certain groups in the provision of goods/services.
2. There are exceptions to the above, but I don't believe that they involve benign, immutable characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. (Benign meaning that they are characteristics that have no implications for any second party, immutable meaning that they are inherent traits that are determined by birth or beyond a person's control.)
3. To the extent there are exceptions, I believe that they would entail non-benign, non-immutable, behavioral based characteristics, such as outward expression of ideas/beliefs that are dangerous, harmful, truly offensive, or that an owner/proprietor finds morally objectionable. For example, if a bunch of skinhead me-Nazis flouting swastikas enter a restaurant, I believe the owner is in his/her right to refuse them service.
4. For goods/services that are of a highly specialized/customized nature, I believe that owners/proprietors have more leeway to refuse service. For example, an attorney should not be compelled to take the case of someone he/she finds morally repugnant, say a neo-Nazi. I have mixed feelings about the cake case, but in the end, I believe that the baking of a cake like that IS a form of artistic expression and thus the baker shouldn't be compelled to put messages on the cake he/she finds morally objectionable. We can debate about whether homosexuality is immoral. IF, however, the gay couple was requesting an off-the-shelf cake, and the baker had refused to serve them, then I'd feel much differently.
5. I come down on the side that the owner should just have served Huckabee. However, to me, this comes under #3 above such that the owner should not be compelled to serve her. Shilling for a lying, proto authoritarian who is a purveyor of hate is neither a benign or immutable characteristic. Were it me, I'd still serve her.
6. We will save ourselves a lot of anxiety and stress if we accept that humans by their nature are inconsistent and that few people truly live by a set of consistent principles, other than the principle to seek advantage over others, privilege one's own interests and beliefs, and apply 'principles' on a case-by-case basis as is convenient. Thus we have on one hand the Evangelical Christians arguing that they should, on moral (pseudo) religious grounds, get refuse service and human dignity to others they find objectionable but on the other hand possessors of an over weaning persecution complex who would howl and cry to no end were they every to find themselves on the other side of the 'morally objectionable' discrimination.
7. I find it fascinating how in DC politicos and pundits put more value in 'civility' than in 'decency.' So the Red Hen will draw the ire among Republicans for an act of incivility, but the same Republicans will overlook over and over and over again acts of indecency by this Administration, such as separating children from parents as either an political ploy, a cynical sop to a political base, and/or out of sheer malice. I do agree that civility is important, and I'd like to see more of it, but more than that, I'd like to see more decency and people on both sides of the aisle ready to promote more decency and condemn indecency when it occurs.
Last edited:
lauriandres
Well-Known Member
Thriller, do you mean, that it is mainly US government and people fault, that the relationship between USA and Mexico are not as good compared to relations between USA and Canada or USA and Japan?
From a foreigner point of view it seams, that US citizens in general do not care or are not afraid of either Canada or Japan, but dislike citizens from Mexico - no matter whether they come to USA legally or not. IMHO Mexico (its people) as neighbour certainly hasn't done anything on its side so that average US citizen would welcome them with benefits etc.
For comparison, my ex-collegue also won the working-visa lottery, stayed one year in San Antonio and had no problems finding work (IT related). However, he went back to Australia (and also found a job as truck driver in a mining region without any problems). Or is it exaggareted i.e if a skilled mexican wants to work in USA - can he/she have a working visa without any problems?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
lmao ur salty cuz the party you helped vote in is filled with fascists and white supremacists. Shameful. Nothing the Thriller could ever say in this forum would match that level of shame.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
rogan is a ****ing idiot who pimps pseudoscience, rubin has been publicly and repeatedly owned by students in auditoriums.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
libertarian party is only championed by incels
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
no one is saying join the democrats-- all we want is basically for you to admit what you did in this post, with less whining. Democrats are soulless, spineless bootlickers who dont dramatically help poor people. The republicans in power are fascists. There's a difference between the two. Also, the Democrats are not far left, nor "the Left" for that matter.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
he's just being insanely obtuse
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Rogan is a good guy. He's pretty down to earth, capable of great conversations (even with those he disagrees with,) he fully admits when he's wrong and apologizes if he does something stupid. I think he's the last guy you should call an idiot, but then again, you think you're better than everyone.
I don't know a lot about Rubin. I'll YouTube him getting owned by students.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
NOTE: Please be aware there is some profanity in this video.
Here's Rubin getting completely destroyed by a student. Lol
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice try, but true to your script. I didn't vote for Trump and I don't have a party, but you don't know me and you don't care to, you just like to run around with your assumptions.
Keep adding coal to the steam engine, build up speed, stop for nothing!
Fine, progressive vs conservatives. Now who's being obtuse, and you seriously played the whining card? That's your card.
I seriously don't know why I bothered posting in General again. It's such a groupthink/accusatory environment.