Leave us alone

[Youkilledkenny]

Big proponent here of 'live and let live'. So long as your actions don't directly impact me & my family in a negative way, I don't much care how you live your life.
If you want to talk to burning bushes, have at it.
If you want to shop only on Sunday, go for it.
Mary and Beth that lives on the other side of the country wants to get married? Better you than me so enjoy.
Want to smoke 172 packs of cigs a day? Gross but ok - just don't blow the smoke on me.
If you wasn't to stand on your roof on one leg in a purple dress waiting for the cashmul equinox knock yourself out.
Why is it that Christians find the need to make society that we all share (muslim, jew, agnostic, atheists, satanists, scientologists, worshippers of the blood diamond - whatever) try to fit their paradigm?
Is it arrogance in thinking your way is the only right way?
Are you trying to make the world a 'better place'?
Do you just like forcing your beliefs on others thinking it will but you into God's good graces and eventually heaven?
Or are you hiding behind a belief in order to be a jerk?

Why can't you, the Christian, live and answer for your life while allowing everyone else to do the same?
What makes your life and belief so special that it supersedes everyone else's?

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 117 by bluethread]

Thanks for thorough response. I will discuss your points as listed.
1. I agree with you that free markets do not exist and every regulation must be sensible and reasonable. I would add that it must have a goal of increasing freedom and the public good as much as is practical, always weighing rights versus responsibilities.
2. The idea that the purpose (one of them) is to "promote the general welfare" is well established. It is stated as one of the primary reasons and rationales for forming the union. It is intentionally vague. The founders knew that times change and the concept of "the general welfare" would change over time. We musy not confuse the modern narrow term "welfare" with the general idea as expressed in the Preamble. The point remains, however, that one of the explicit functions of the new government was to promote, bylaws, the welfare of the society. And the society is, of course, composed of real people, not abstractions.
How that is interpreted is always a matter for the Supreme Court. So, over time, the concept will take on new meaning. As it should.
3.The Commerce Clause has been extended over time. Precisely because the nation has become much more interdependent and interwoven over time. When the Constitution was written the population was probably 80-90% rural and isolated. Over time and with industrialization that has changed. The framers may not have been able to anticipate this radical change, but they certainly planned for it. How? By the ability of Congress and the courts to adapt the document to the times. The argument , which I hear often, about "what the founders would have done or wanted" is really not a good one. We don't know what John Adams would say today about any particular issue. The founders were men of their times. They created a flexible document. I think what the founders would say is this: Good work. We created a document flexible enough to last over 200 years.
4. You seem to take the position in point 4 that the only remedy open to citizens should be the courts. I hope that is not the case. For example, are you suggesting that the government should not regulate food quality? So that if my infant is fed poisonous formula my "and dies my "recourse" is a lawsuit? I don't think you would suggest that as the only option.
5. The government can legislate any thing it wants, as long as it is Constitutional. that is what government does. Regarding discrimination in the marketplace my argument goes like this. We all pay taxes . We are all citizens, even if we don't pay taxes. Businesses all benefit from the taxes and laws of the nation. As a result, if you want the benefits of doing business you can be required to follow laws regarding discrimination. When you arbitrarily discriminate against citizens based on gender, religion, etc. you are violating the law. This is in direct opposition to the Jim Crow laws of the past. We have moved on.
6. The Declaration of Independence was a statement of the reasons for breaking away from England. It was not intended to be nor used as a governing document. It does not apply to the Constitution, except as a precursor. It is not legally binding. In other words, it does not matter.

[Clownboat]

I am arguing for tolerance.

What you are arguing for would be to walk past the the man going from Jerusalem to Jericho that was robbed and beaten.

Jesus ordered you to 'Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Luke 10: 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?�
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.�
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.�

Jesus didn't say to go and do likewise, except if the robbed man is gay.

Why is it that myself, a now non-believer is capable of mercy here and why do you seem to struggle with it so much?

Modern psychology argues for non aggressive forms of discipline, yet the proposed solutions for unwanted discrimination are fine, imprisonment, and forced labor. What happened to simply not rewarding bad behavior and positive reinforcement of good behavior?

Have you lost your Christian beliefs? What happened to 'spare the rod and spoil the child?'
No one should be surprised to see me argue about the Bible being archaic and barbaric, but it is odd to see it coming from you.

Well, as I stated before these views are also held by prominent theists. If you consider Christianity to be a reasonable moral standard, I can discuss the issue in that light.

No need, but I am curious about your thoughts on sparing the rod and spoiling the child. Is modern psychology superb compared to these ancient writings?

We are also not talking about my personal behaviors

Correct, but they have been noted here anyways, which causes me to have some questions.

A man can do what he wants with his firetruck. However, if this fire department gets any money from the public, they would not be allowed to choose a group of humans to then not offer their services to.

So, if I were to do bookkeeping for the farmer, then the farmer could choose to only bring his truck into town when my house is on fire?

You have lost me. Why can a farmer that owns a firetruck not drive it into town whenever he likes?

Well, you are the one making the distinction between fairness and justice. Be that as it may, I am trying to determine why discrimination must be defined based on national civil rights legislation and not the general definition. After all those areas regulated by civil rights legislation that you listed does not include sexual orientation.

It saddens me that someone would need a government to make them not discriminate due to sexual orientation. Would you discriminate against blacks, Jews and/or Muslims if a government didn't tell you that you couldn't? Is it just gays that you seek to treat differently? Have you never heard the Good Samaritan story nor read the teachings of Jesus?

So, not allowing someone a day short of 21 years old to drink at a bar for people 21 and over is the same as not allowing blacks to drink from a white man's fountain?

No. Now please defend this nonsensical question.

That is an example of how the government mandates that businesses discriminate based on age. Though it is not included in your list, do you approve of age discrimination?

Show me an example of age discrimination. Equally not allowing all people under the age of 18 to not buy cigarettes is not discrimination (IMO) since there is not a group of 18 year olds being discriminating against categorically rather than individually.

More war with the English language?
Please show, that because I don't flip a coin to decide where to eat, that I am then treating a specific group of humans within Mcdonald's in this case with discrimination. Feel free to use any of the definitions for discrimination that I have provided so far, or provide one of your own.
If you can't, will you please retract this statement?

Let me repeat the primary definition provided by Wiktionary. "Discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things, with intent to understand rightly and make correct decisions."
That is what one is doing when one chooses to go to Wendy's instead to McDonald's. As you stated, allowing people to do this does permit the possibility of prejudice and injustice. However, to not allow people to do this is rather draconian, and really ineffective, IMO.

When I said: "Feel free to use any of the definitions for discrimination that I have provided so far, or provide one of your own." Did you think I asked you to provide a definition of a different word? If not, why did you?

Ah, so you chose the narrow definition

I did not make a choice. Like I explained, I typed in the word and simply picked the first definition that showed up. My argument doesn't change if we use the definition from dictionary.com or Websters, so I don't understand your complaint other than you don't like definitions of discrimination that include unjust or with prejudice. Obviously, someone arguing in favor of discrimination wouldn't. The bigger question for me is, 'why would anyone argue in favor of discrimination', especially the type I have been providing definitions for. What's more ironic is watching a Christian believer just simply ignore the Good Samaritan story.

False. I have provided a definition for discrimination. The words unjust and with prejudice are included. Do you deny this? I have even made a point to refer to Dictionary.com more in this post because you are uncomfortable with the other definition. Which definition that is used does not change my argument about treating people like equals.

Note the Dictionary.com definitions:

"1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment:
She chose the colors with great discrimination."

None of those refer to something being unjust or prejudiced.

Not once did I ever claim that the dictionary.com definition used the words unjust or with prejudice.
What I notice is that you don't seem to have any ground to stand on for why we should discriminate against gay people, so you can do nothing more than complain about definitions.
Why gay people, and should we include more groups of humans to treat differently?

Now, you change your argument from unjust and prejudice to "treating people like equals".

I would prefer to discuss the topic at hand and not definitions, but you seem reluctant to do that.

Hold your horses. Not all discrimination is unjust IMO, therefore this, accusation does not hold.
Many find it just, to not allow criminals to purchase guns. Violent criminals are a group of humans that are IMO justly not allowed to by guns. This determination is being decided by the 'criminal status', not their gender, religion or race. So we could quibble over whether or not this is discrimination, but I trust you get my point.

I am glad we agree. I am not quibbling over whether that is discrimination, it clearly is.

I disagree that this is clear because I don't see anything unjust happening, nor can I identify a group within these criminals that are being discriminated against. Either way, this is just you arguing about the English language rather than addressing treating gay people differently then straights when you find out as a cake maker that the cake is to be sold to a gay person.

I noticed that you are no longer including sex in your list, as you did earlier based on the google definition.

I am making lots of consolations on your behalf to try to keep you on task. It is very hard.

You now use the term "gender", which is not mentioned in any of the definitions so far. That speaks to my point. One can expand or contract what one considers to be unjust based on e needs of one's argument.

Stop warring with language!!!!
Is what happened to the gay couple, you know, the ones that were going to buy a cake until the sellers of the cake noticed two male names on it discrimination or not? You owe an answer to the readers on this point by now and no arguing with definitions can help you with this answer.

So, I think it best to see discrimination in it's broadest definition and then examine each case to determine if legislation is the best remedy, if a remedy is needed.

What you seem to be doing is to avoid discussing the discrimination that happened here and instead argue about definitions.

Personally, I prefer merit, but what I consider to be meritorious may differ from what another person considers to be meritorious. Rather than getting government to enforce my view of meritorious decision making with fine, imprisonment, or forced compliance. I think that it is much more productive for me to support those things that I find to be meritorious and ignore those things that I do not find meritorious, unless such things actively endanger another's person or property.

I disagree. Perhaps it is my Christian upbringing coming out. If you cannot treat groups of people as equals, perhaps we need a government to step in to make you be more Christlike. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

Note that I was misquoted. I did not say, "No. I am not saying that maturity is a classification." Is said "No, I am not saying that maturity is a classification." I was referring to maturity being a classification, not age being a discriminating factor. The fact is that not allowing people under the age of 18 to buy cigarettes is age discrimination. It is just legal age discrimination. It is not based on the merit of the 17 year old, but is based entirely on a best guess generalization.

And I reject this explanation because you cannot identify a group, within those under the age of 18 that is being discriminated against. What is the proposed mechanism to identify if someone should be in the mature group or not? For me it just seems like you are trying to invent a group.

So, are you now saying that "gays" don't know how to bake, or can't start a bakery? For someone who does not like prejudice, you don't seem to think very highly of blacks and "gays".

Shame on you! I have said nothing of the sort and quite frankly I hope someone reports this nonsense.

What if there were no baker's in town, what would this surgeon do then?

he would be forced to drive to another town or not have a baker make them a cake. Please explain what this has to do with discrimination.

Would he not encourage one of his patients to open a bakery? If one is trusting this surgeon with his life, would he such a one also be willing to sell him a cake? I am sorry, if you were offended, but your implication that there is no market solution to this surgeon's problem begs the question. Where are all of the black or "gay" baker's?

I specifically mentioned small town. Perhaps you are not aware that many small towns don't have many minorities due to the fact that they are SMALL towns.

That is the problem. It is a difficult thing to determine people's motivations. Even if you were to publicly say, "I won't eat at that McDonald's, because there are black people working there." Do you think that the government should fine you, or that you should be forced to pay damages to McDonald's or it's employees?

Please explain why I should be forced to pay McDonald's or its employees if I choose to go to Wendy's that day instead. Make your best argument please.

That is why I think the best way to deal with these things is for people to be encouraged to seek out under served segments of the society and provide the desired product or service, rather than attempting to force people to do so based on threat of fine or imprisonment.

I'm not sure how to fix this issue you seem to have where we are to treat humans as equals when we open a business that serves humans and you for some reason think that this equates to forcing businesses to do things that they don't do, without addressing the equality part. Do you look at the gay group of humans and not see them as equals or what?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 111 by Clownboat]

"My point has been clear. If a business offers a service, they cannot discriminate against a specific group of humans due to race, religion or sex by excluding them from the service they offer to everyone else."

We might like to think that is how things work but if we are honest we see that is not how things are.
For an example, you go to a Jewish cakemaker and ask them to ice the cake with 'Jesus loves you', they will give you reasons why they are not going to.
You can object but they are going to win and not you.
If you object too much, you are anti-semite.

If a Jewish cake maker will not put 'Jesus loves you' on a cake for any human on this planet, what group of humans is being discriminated against categorically rather than individually?

Or to use another definition, what group of humans is being treated unjustly and/or with prejudice?

Refusing to decorate a cake with a Catholic priest, tongue darting the fart box of an 8 year old boy for every human on this planet is just not the same thing as making cakes for all humans, well... as long as they don't belong to the 'gay' group of humans.

[bluethread]

And the seller is the guy with skills. It is being argued on this thread that favors the seller.

We are still talking about minimum wages paying jobs here, aren't we?

Yes, the seller is not permitted to sell his services for less than a government specified price.

No, that is not a straight forward argument for why discrimination is unjust.

Seriously? Modus ponens is the most straight forward rule of inference there is outside of tautologies.

As I have noted in a previous post, that is not THE dictionary definition. It is A definition based on particular legislation.

Google says otherwise "discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." Not interested in arguing semantics with you.

It also says, "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". We are discussing what discrimination is unjust, if all discrimination is unjust, then government "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another" is unjust. Now, you could argue that that does not apply, because that is Google's second definition. However, that is the first definition in both Wiktionary and Dictionary.com. I am not really basing my argument on any one dictionary, what I am basing my argument on is the fact the it is unreasonable to presume the conclusion in a debate. That favors the use of the general definition for the sake of this discussion.

All hail the socialist state, comrade. That is why the founders established the bill of rights, to provide the citizenry protection against the tyranny of an aristocratic bureaucracy. "Congress shall make no law . . . "

You do know the bill of rights is on our side, right?

Yes, it is on our side in that it restricts government action. The Constitution lays out what the federal government can do and how it can do it. The Bill or Rights state what the federal government can not do.

Are you saying that a favor has no value?

No, I am saying doing someone a favor is different to running a business.

In what way?

What is the difference between "religious" Catholic weddings and "secular" Catholic weddings?

Nothing, as far as a business is concern.

How is it different for someone who is not in business?

I accept it as legal restriction, not an economic imperative. I personally have no problem, in general, with selling to people without regard to their personal relationships. However, I do not think one should be required to conduct business in a way that condones any particular personal habit.

Well the status quo has been established, one is currently required to conduct business regardless of any particular personal habit, what argument, do you have other than "free market is always better," to change that?

Well, requiring people to do things under threat of fine and imprisonment breeds resentment and facilitates the establishment of a grievance industry.

Yes, not just not selling to gay people, but not selling to anybody for any reason, as long as there are other market alternatives.

May I ask why the exception? If every bakery refuses to sell to gay, then it's okay to force them?

The only exception is that a sale can be forced if it is for government use, in the public interest. Any other time one should be able to refuse to sell to anybody at any time for any reason.

That is not the question. The question is if someone sells X to one set of customers are they obligated to sell X' to another set of customers?

How is that not the same question? The answer is still the same: if someone sells X to one set of customers they ARE obligated to sell X to another set of customers. I thought I was being extremely clear.

No X is not X'. The latter has a '.

But, you can compete. You are free to enter the market and innovate.

You can try. Does trying then going out of business count as being able to complete to you? Seems like a stretch to me.

Does not winning a race mean that one did not compete? Is the winner the only one who competes. The stretch is that someone can do something in such a way that no one else can stay in the same business or come up with an alternative. This once again is the monopoly argument. Again, name one company that has been able to establish or maintain a monopoly without government interference.

No, it took a boycott and competition. Had the government not interfered in the first place it might have continued, but only as one consumer preference among many.

EN-OH NO. Consumer who preference is blacks sits at the back is not a preference to be catered to.

In your opinion and mine. However, inaction is not catering. Catering to discrimination is Jim Crow and "affirmative action". When the government established Jim Crow laws, it was catering to that. Had they not catered to that form of discrimination, the worst case scenario is that there would be some private buses that had that rule and some that did not. Consumers would have a choice and if the public did not want that kind of thing, it would become a niche service at best.

That is socialist propaganda. There are industries that lend themselves to economies of scale, but, even there, innovation counters that. The news industry is a prime example. It was believed, just 40 years ago, that networks had to be regulated for content to assure "fair" coverage. However, alternative media, i.e. am radio and the internet, have put the lie to that.

You think the smaller stations would not be snapped up the moment anti-trust laws allows them? There are alternative media exactly because there are laws to regulate big businesses.

So, you are arguing that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News would not exist without government regulation? The opposite is the case, Rush Limbaugh was able to gain entry to the market only after the Carter "equal time" laws were revoked. Also, in spite of the big three networks having a presumed "lock" on television, Fox News was able to enter the market, cater to a constituency that was being ignored by the Big Three, and now dominates TV news. CNN did it first, but was not as successful, because their approach was news quantitative, not qualitative.

That is entirely subjective. In the first case, you say the seller is "screwed over" and in the second case you say the buyer is "screwed over". Is the employer being "screwed over", if the employee is doing less and demanding more?

They can demand all they like.

Is the the vendor being "screwed over", if buyers are demanding better goods at lower prices?

They can demand all they like.

In a free market both parties can demand all they like. The other party is not required to cater to those demands. Currently, an employee(seller) can refuse to cater a "gay" wedding on religious grounds and the employer(buyer) is required to make reasonable accommodation. However, if the employer(seller) does not provide catering service to the "guy wedding" (buyer) for the same reason, the employer is subject to fine and/or imprisonment.

Before, you said the one with the currency has an unfair advantage, but, in the latter case, it is the customer that has the money. This is entirely inconsistent.

It's who has the biggest pool.

I know you do not mean swimming pool, but you may as well. Sure, someone with a reservoir can survive a drought, but not forever or against all competition and innovation. There is no monopoly in history that has ever survived without government assistance. Even organized crime is sustained by government. Without prohibition, the mafia could not have gained the prominence that it did.

Bingo, we have the Bill of Rights, because without it there is no natural check on government, "Congress shall make no law ...". A free market is a natural check on the economy.

The rich gets richer is not a natural check.

Apart from government interference, the rich get richer only by providing a superior product at a lower price. To do that they must in turn do business with vendors and employees who do the same thing. That leaves them subject to competition and innovation by others beyond their control. if they stop producing a superior product at a lower price, the stop becoming richer.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 117 by bluethread]

Thanks for thorough response. I will discuss your points as listed.
1. I agree with you that free markets do not exist and every regulation must be sensible and reasonable. I would add that it must have a goal of increasing freedom and the public good as much as is practical, always weighing rights versus responsibilities.

That is not what I said. I stated that I was not arguing for a "completely free market economy". One may very well exist, but I am not arguing for that. However, governmentally sustained free markets do exist and thrive. For such a market to thrive , however, any laws should be focused on free access to the market place, respect for personal property rights and arms length exchange. Apart from that, the degree of freedom and what constitutes the "public good" are to be determined by the cumulative effect of the actions of the buyers and sellers.

2. The idea that the purpose (one of them) is to "promote the general welfare" is well established. It is stated as one of the primary reasons and rationales for forming the union. It is intentionally vague. The founders knew that times change and the concept of "the general welfare" would change over time. We musy not confuse the modern narrow term "welfare" with the general idea as expressed in the Preamble. The point remains, however, that one of the explicit functions of the new government was to promote, bylaws, the welfare of the society. And the society is, of course, composed of real people, not abstractions.
How that is interpreted is always a matter for the Supreme Court. So, over time, the concept will take on new meaning. As it should.

You can hold that viewpoint. However, the views of the founders on these matters are well documented and they did not expect them to be changed without a constitutional amendment. As I stated the Preamble is and has always been seen as a statement of principle and not law. However, the actual "General Welfare Clause" is in the taxation portion of the constitution and has, maybe until this present court, referred to taxation and the use of public funds, not the regulation of private property. In fact, the view that taxes could be levied to provide for programs to promote the "general welfare" of the citizenry has only been entertained since 1936.

3.The Commerce Clause has been extended over time. Precisely because the nation has become much more interdependent and interwoven over time. When the Constitution was written the population was probably 80-90% rural and isolated. Over time and with industrialization that has changed. The framers may not have been able to anticipate this radical change, but they certainly planned for it. How? By the ability of Congress and the courts to adapt the document to the times. The argument , which I hear often, about "what the founders would have done or wanted" is really not a good one. We don't know what John Adams would say today about any particular issue. The founders were men of their times. They created a flexible document. I think what the founders would say is this: Good work. We created a document flexible enough to last over 200 years.

The flexibility in that document was vested in amendments and constitutional conventions, not the whims of the Congress or the Judiciary. The Constitution empowers the Congress to make laws and propose amendments. It empowers the Supreme Court to determine if those laws violate the Constitution as written and amended. It explicitly prohibits Congress from changing the Constitution by any means other than amendment or a constitutional congress. It also does not empower the judiciary to find the Constitution or any part of it to be outdated. If the Constitution is outdated, it must be changed by the people by amendment or a constitutional convention. Anything else violates the separation of powers and constitutes tyranny, IMO.

4. You seem to take the position in point 4 that the only remedy open to citizens should be the courts. I hope that is not the case. For example, are you suggesting that the government should not regulate food quality? So that if my infant is fed poisonous formula my "and dies my "recourse" is a lawsuit? I don't think you would suggest that as the only option.

No, Constitutionally, I am proposing that such is the purview of the people and the states respectively. You have recourse to the state courts for murder and/or manslaughter. The health of any particular child is no risk to the Union. Economically, public discloser is best and is legislation that promotes a free market. If someone promotes their goods as safe for infants, then that one would be liable for any adverse effects. However, if one does not make such a claim, the parent who purchases the goods and feeds then to the child is accepting responsibility. The problem with the "general welfare" of the citizenry approach is that it vests in the bureaucracy the right to decide what is "quality food". This may be different from one person to another, and may lead to the general public being deprived of food for the sake of assuring that all food is safe for all people under all circumstances. Examples are Mayor Blumberg's outlawing of Big Gulps and table salt.

5. The government can legislate any thing it wants, as long as it is Constitutional. that is what government does. Regarding discrimination in the marketplace my argument goes like this. We all pay taxes . We are all citizens, even if we don't pay taxes. Businesses all benefit from the taxes and laws of the nation. As a result, if you want the benefits of doing business you can be required to follow laws regarding discrimination. When you arbitrarily discriminate against citizens based on gender, religion, etc. you are violating the law. This is in direct opposition to the Jim Crow laws of the past. We have moved on.

No, it is exactly that same as the Jim Crow laws, just from a different philosophical prospective. The Jim Crow Laws were passed by people who actually believed that they were acting in the public interest and they believed that it was the duty of all citizens to abide by them as beneficiaries of the state. The Jim Crow Laws were not struck down because they were immoral, the were struck down because they were unconstitutional. When the thirteenth amendment extended federal law to the states, it also extended the Constitutional restrictions to the states. So, now when the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law . . . " it means no congress, state or federal, shall make any law . . . This took the government out of the way and freed the oppressed by permitting the citizenry to provide an alternative. Continuing to treat the citizenry as beneficiaries of the state, just exchanges one set of discriminatory standards for another.

6. The Declaration of Independence was a statement of the reasons for breaking away from England. It was not intended to be nor used as a governing document. It does not apply to the Constitution, except as a precursor. It is not legally binding. In other words, it does not matter.

Tell that to those who argue that the government should pass laws to assure their right to pursue happiness.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, the seller is not permitted to sell his services for less than a government specified price.

Right, so we are talking about a situation where the employer holds all the cards.

It also says, "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". We are discussing what discrimination is unjust, if all discrimination is unjust, then government "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another" is unjust. Now, you could argue that that does not apply, because that is Google's second definition. However, that is the first definition in both Wiktionary and Dictionary.com. I am not really basing my argument on any one dictionary, what I am basing my argument on is the fact the it is unreasonable to presume the conclusion in a debate. That favors the use of the general definition for the sake of this discussion.

This is a semantics discussion. I already told you I am not interested. You just need to state you preference and I will use it. Don't argue whether discrimination have to unjust or not - that's not up for debate. Your preference on which definition to use is just that, your preference, there is no argument.

Yes, it is on our side in that it restricts government action. The Constitution lays out what the federal government can do and how it can do it. The Bill or Rights state what the federal government can not do.

Right, and your point is?

In what way?

One is a business, the other isn't?

How is it different for someone who is not in business?

There is no difference for me. There is no accounting for someone's private feelings, you'll have to ask the person who do feel there is a difference.

Well, requiring people to do things under threat of fine and imprisonment breeds resentment and facilitates the establishment of a grievance industry.

And that's a bad thing how, bearing in minds "the things" in question is immoral?

The only exception is that a sale can be forced if it is for government use, in the public interest. Any other time one should be able to refuse to sell to anybody at any time for any reason.

I disagree.

No X is not X'. The latter has a '.

I thought that was a typo, my bad; but that too was covered by my original answer too, the answer still hasn't changed: If business offers X' to one set of customers are they obligated to sell X' to another set of customers. If business does not offer X' to one set of customers are they not obligated to sell X' to another set of customers. I used a variable exactly because you can substitute anything you like into it.

Does not winning a race mean that one did not compete? Is the winner the only one who competes.

Depending on how badly you lose - if you a given a thrashing then "you cannot complete" is exactly the right phrase to describe the situation.

The stretch is that someone can do something in such a way that no one else can stay in the same business or come up with an alternative. This once again is the monopoly argument. Again, name one company that has been able to establish or maintain a monopoly without government interference.

I am not aware of any. How about I name you a set of government legislation designed to combat monopolies instead?

In your opinion and mine. However, inaction is not catering. Catering to discrimination is Jim Crow and "affirmative action". When the government established Jim Crow laws, it was catering to that...

I was referring to some hypothetical private bus company that cater "whites only" or "blacks in the back."

Had they not catered to that form of discrimination, the worst case scenario is that there would be some private buses that had that rule and some that did not. Consumers would have a choice and if the public did not want that kind of thing, it would become a niche service at best.

And that was bad thing. The better scenario is that there are no buses that had that rule. The government stepped it to ensure it.

So, you are arguing that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News would not exist without government regulation?

No, Fox is one of the large companies waiting to snap up pop up stations and media.

In a free market both parties can demand all they like. The other party is not required to cater to those demands. Currently, an employee(seller) can refuse to cater a "gay" wedding on religious grounds and the employer(buyer) is required to make reasonable accommodation. However, if the employer(seller) does not provide catering service to the "guy wedding" (buyer) for the same reason, the employer is subject to fine and/or imprisonment.

Right, and that's how it should be.

I know you do not mean swimming pool, but you may as well. Sure, someone with a reservoir can survive a drought, but not forever or against all competition and innovation. There is no monopoly in history that has ever survived without government assistance.

I still don't know what monopoly you are referring to.

Even organized crime is sustained by government. Without prohibition, the mafia could not have gained the prominence that it did.

There for all drugs should be legalised?

Apart from government interference, the rich get richer only by providing a superior product at a lower price. To do that they must in turn do business with vendors and employees who do the same thing. That leaves them subject to competition and innovation by others beyond their control. if they stop producing a superior product at a lower price, the stop becoming richer.

And they can do that because they are rich.

[bluethread]

I am arguing for tolerance.

What you are arguing for would be to walk past the the man going from Jerusalem to Jericho that was robbed and beaten.

Jesus ordered you to 'Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Luke 10: 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?�
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.�
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.�

Jesus didn't say to go and do likewise, except if the robbed man is gay.

Why is it that myself, a now non-believer is capable of mercy here and why do you seem to struggle with it so much?

No, what you are arguing for is making it illegal for someone to walk passed the man going to Jerusalem, using your overstatement of the situation. Do you believe that we should enact 'Love your neighbor as yourself.’ as legislation? Currently, it is not illegal to refrain from rendering assistance. I never said that I would not render assistance to someone in critical condition, or I would not encourage others to render assistance in that case. However, legislating such a thing is rather problematic.

Modern psychology argues for non aggressive forms of discipline, yet the proposed solutions for unwanted discrimination are fine, imprisonment, and forced labor. What happened to simply not rewarding bad behavior and positive reinforcement of good behavior?

Have you lost your Christian beliefs? What happened to 'spare the rod and spoil the child?'
No one should be surprised to see me argue about the Bible being archaic and barbaric, but it is odd to see it coming from you.

I am not the one introducing the bible into this discussion. Do you want to discuss how this should be handled under Torah law, US law or based on the best economic effect? They are three different perspectives and call for three different solutions.

Well, as I stated before these views are also held by prominent theists. If you consider Christianity to be a reasonable moral standard, I can discuss the issue in that light.

No need, but I am curious about your thoughts on sparing the rod and spoiling the child. Is modern psychology superb compared to these ancient writings?

"Spare the rod" is an idiom, that could apply literally in certain circumstances and positive reinforcement is also a useful tool that is supported by the Scriptures in certain circumstances. However, neither one of them is a one size fits all solution.

A man can do what he wants with his firetruck. However, if this fire department gets any money from the public, they would not be allowed to choose a group of humans to then not offer their services to.

So, if I were to do bookkeeping for the farmer, then the farmer could choose to only bring his truck into town when my house is on fire?

You have lost me. Why can a farmer that owns a firetruck not drive it into town whenever he likes?

That is my point. What you are saying is that if the farmer drives his truck into town for me and I give him money, he is obligated to do the same for my neighbor in exchange for money. I am asking if this applies if the farmer drives his truck into town for me because I do his bookkeeping.

Well, you are the one making the distinction between fairness and justice. Be that as it may, I am trying to determine why discrimination must be defined based on national civil rights legislation and not the general definition. After all those areas regulated by civil rights legislation that you listed does not include sexual orientation.

It saddens me that someone would need a government to make them not discriminate due to sexual orientation. Would you discriminate against blacks, Jews and/or Muslims if a government didn't tell you that you couldn't? Is it just gays that you seek to treat differently? Have you never heard the Good Samaritan story nor read the teachings of Jesus?

It saddens me that people need a government to get them to do many things, but that does not mean that the government should force people to do those things under threat of fine and/or imprisonment. There is a significant difference between what I want people to do and what I should insist that the government force them to do.

So, not allowing someone a day short of 21 years old to drink at a bar for people 21 and over is the same as not allowing blacks to drink from a white man's fountain?

No. Now please defend this nonsensical question.

You are the one who is equating all discrimination. I am just trying to find out why government discrimination is acceptable and private discrimination is not.

That is an example of how the government mandates that businesses discriminate based on age. Though it is not included in your list, do you approve of age discrimination?

Show me an example of age discrimination. Equally not allowing all people under the age of 18 to not buy cigarettes is not discrimination (IMO) since there is not a group of 18 year olds being discriminating against categorically rather than individually.

That is false, all 18 year olds are being discriminated against based on age. That is why it is called age discrimination. They are not being denied service based on their individual ability to handle alcohol.

Let me repeat the primary definition provided by Wiktionary. "Discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things, with intent to understand rightly and make correct decisions."
That is what one is doing when one chooses to go to Wendy's instead to McDonald's. As you stated, allowing people to do this does permit the possibility of prejudice and injustice. However, to not allow people to do this is rather draconian, and really ineffective, IMO.

When I said: "Feel free to use any of the definitions for discrimination that I have provided so far, or provide one of your own." Did you think I asked you to provide a definition of a different word? If not, why did you?

That is not a different word. That is the primary Wiktionary definition of discrimination.

Ah, so you chose the narrow definition

I did not make a choice. Like I explained, I typed in the word and simply picked the first definition that showed up. My argument doesn't change if we use the definition from dictionary.com or Websters, so I don't understand your complaint other than you don't like definitions of discrimination that include unjust or with prejudice. Obviously, someone arguing in favor of discrimination wouldn't. The bigger question for me is, 'why would anyone argue in favor of discrimination', especially the type I have been providing definitions for. What's more ironic is watching a Christian believer just simply ignore the Good Samaritan story.

Yes, you chose to use the first google definition. The other google definition is the first Wiktionary definition. The one I am presenting is included in the first definition on dictionary. com. It is the second one in Webster's. Even though, you say I can use whichever I wish, I am not being capricious in the definition I am using. I am using the general definition, because doing so does not presume the conclusion. If discrimination is always unjust, then one should be able to show that using the general definition.

False. I have provided a definition for discrimination. The words unjust and with prejudice are included. Do you deny this? I have even made a point to refer to Dictionary.com more in this post because you are uncomfortable with the other definition. Which definition that is used does not change my argument about treating people like equals.

Note the Dictionary.com definitions:

"1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment:
She chose the colors with great discrimination."

None of those refer to something being unjust or prejudiced.

Not once did I ever claim that the dictionary.com definition used the words unjust or with prejudice.
What I notice is that you don't seem to have any ground to stand on for why we should discriminate against gay people, so you can do nothing more than complain about definitions.
Why gay people, and should we include more groups of humans to treat differently?

I am doing much more that complaining about the definition. Your argument is that discrimination is unjust or prejudiced, and you based that on the definition you chose. I have referred to other groups of humans, that are being discriminated against in compliance with a government mandate, specifically people under the age of 18, and, since you changed that to 18 year olds, even 18 year olds, with regard to public drinking. Is the government wrong in mandating this discrimination?

Now, you change your argument from unjust and prejudice to "treating people like equals".

I would prefer to discuss the topic at hand and not definitions, but you seem reluctant to do that.

That is because you are defining the topic in a way the presumes the premise. That is fallacious. You also make claims, i.e. discrimination is always unjust and prejudice, which you change or deny when it is convenient. Is discrimination always unjust and prejudice? If so, what makes it so? If it is because it is based on presumptions regarding groups of people, why is it ok for the government to mandate it with regard to the sale of alcohol 18 year olds and the sale of cigarettes to those under the age of 18?

Hold your horses. Not all discrimination is unjust IMO, therefore this, accusation does not hold.
Many find it just, to not allow criminals to purchase guns. Violent criminals are a group of humans that are IMO justly not allowed to by guns. This determination is being decided by the 'criminal status', not their gender, religion or race. So we could quibble over whether or not this is discrimination, but I trust you get my point.

I am glad we agree. I am not quibbling over whether that is discrimination, it clearly is.

I disagree that this is clear because I don't see anything unjust happening, nor can I identify a group within these criminals that are being discriminated against. Either way, this is just you arguing about the English language rather than addressing treating gay people differently then straights when you find out as a cake maker that the cake is to be sold to a gay person.

Emphasis Mine

You just told me to hold my horses, because you said that not all discrimination is unjust in your opinion. You then use felons not being allowed to own guns as an example. Now, you say that these criminals are not being discriminating against. That is why I am enquiring about your use of the English language. If keeping felons from buying guns is not discrimination, then what is an example of just discrimination?

I noticed that you are no longer including sex in your list, as you did earlier based on the google definition.

I am making lots of consolations on your behalf to try to keep you on task. It is very hard.

I never asked you to change the definition reference from sex to gender. You chose to change it yourself, without justifying that change. So, why are you arguing that the definition applies to something that is not listed as an example of unjust in the definition? Again, I have no problem with using a broader definition as long as we do not presume that all discrimination is unjust. Rather than discriminating by calling all discrimination unjust, maybe we should judge each case of discrimination on it's own merits.

You now use the term "gender", which is not mentioned in any of the definitions so far. That speaks to my point. One can expand or contract what one considers to be unjust based on e needs of one's argument.

Stop warring with language!!!!
Is what happened to the gay couple, you know, the ones that were going to buy a cake until the sellers of the cake noticed two male names on it discrimination or not? You owe an answer to the readers on this point by now and no arguing with definitions can help you with this answer.

I think I made it clear that I do think it is discrimination, but I do not think that private sector discrimination should be illegal.

So, I think it best to see discrimination in it's broadest definition and then examine each case to determine if legislation is the best remedy, if a remedy is needed.

What you seem to be doing is to avoid discussing the discrimination that happened here and instead argue about definitions.

No, I am discussing discrimination in general. I am discussing definitions, because it has been argued that all discrimination is unjust by definition. I am just trying to determine how that squares with what the government does, since the implication is that the government should be stopping private sector discrimination using the threat of fine and/or imprisonment, rather than encouraging competition and innovation.

Personally, I prefer merit, but what I consider to be meritorious may differ from what another person considers to be meritorious. Rather than getting government to enforce my view of meritorious decision making with fine, imprisonment, or forced compliance. I think that it is much more productive for me to support those things that I find to be meritorious and ignore those things that I do not find meritorious, unless such things actively endanger another's person or property.

I disagree. Perhaps it is my Christian upbringing coming out. If you cannot treat groups of people as equals, perhaps we need a government to step in to make you be more Christlike. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

However, the government dose not treat groups of people equally. That said, are you arguing that the government should impose your view of a particular religion on me? How is that treating everybody equally? Do you think that the government should be in the practice if passing legislation to make people more "Christlike"?

Note that I was misquoted. I did not say, "No. I am not saying that maturity is a classification." Is said "No, I am not saying that maturity is a classification." I was referring to maturity being a classification, not age being a discriminating factor. The fact is that not allowing people under the age of 18 to buy cigarettes is age discrimination. It is just legal age discrimination. It is not based on the merit of the 17 year old, but is based entirely on a best guess generalization.

And I reject this explanation because you cannot identify a group, within those under the age of 18 that is being discriminated against. What is the proposed mechanism to identify if someone should be in the mature group or not? For me it just seems like you are trying to invent a group.

Age, that is the mechanism. I am not inventing a group. The government is recognizing every one under the age of 18 as a group. They are saying that 17 year olds are like 2 year olds and not like 18 year olds when it comes to smoking. In the case of the healthy 17 year old Rhodes Scholar, that is not just discrimination in the general sense, but discrimination based on classification and not merit.

So, are you now saying that "gays" don't know how to bake, or can't start a bakery? For someone who does not like prejudice, you don't seem to think very highly of blacks and "gays".

Shame on you! I have said nothing of the sort and quite frankly I hope someone reports this nonsense.

What if there were no baker's in town, what would this surgeon do then?

he would be forced to drive to another town or not have a baker make them a cake. Please explain what this has to do with discrimination.

Forced by whom? Why do you frame this as a case of force and not choice?

Would he not encourage one of his patients to open a bakery? If one is trusting this surgeon with his life, would he such a one also be willing to sell him a cake? I am sorry, if you were offended, but your implication that there is no market solution to this surgeon's problem begs the question. Where are all of the black or "gay" baker's?

I specifically mentioned small town. Perhaps you are not aware that many small towns don't have many minorities due to the fact that they are SMALL towns.

So, where did this surgeon come from, if there are no black or "gay" people in this hypothetical SMALL town? Why isn't the government of that town required to establish a bakery at taxpayer expense to keep that poor surgeon from being "forced" to drive to another town?

That is the problem. It is a difficult thing to determine people's motivations. Even if you were to publicly say, "I won't eat at that McDonald's, because there are black people working there." Do you think that the government should fine you, or that you should be forced to pay damages to McDonald's or it's employees?

Please explain why I should be forced to pay McDonald's or its employees if I choose to go to Wendy's that day instead. Make your best argument please.

I did, because we know you went to Wendy's because there are black people working at the McDonald's.

That is why I think the best way to deal with these things is for people to be encouraged to seek out under served segments of the society and provide the desired product or service, rather than attempting to force people to do so based on threat of fine or imprisonment.

I'm not sure how to fix this issue you seem to have where we are to treat humans as equals when we open a business that serves humans and you for some reason think that this equates to forcing businesses to do things that they don't do, without addressing the equality part. Do you look at the gay group of humans and not see them as equals or what?

They are equal to me in some ways and different in others. Though, I am not an egalitarian, I appreciate the motives behind some people thinking that all people should be treated as equals. I just don't think that philosophy should be forced on the public as a matter of law. I believe the best way to establish appropriate treatment is for people to voluntarily engage in arms length transactions with whoever they please, buyer and seller alike.

[bluethread]

Yes, the seller is not permitted to sell his services for less than a government specified price.

Right, so we are talking about a situation where the employer holds all the cards.

No, we are talking about a government designation created by government mandates and taxation. The amount of control is negotiated between the buyer and seller of labor. Based on the nature of that contract, the government mandates certain things, including minimum wage requirements. So, this is not a matter of the employer "holding all of the cards", but the government deeming certain contracts in which certain rights and privileges are granted to the buyer, by the seller, as subject to it's jurisdiction. In other words, this is the government, for it's own purposes, interjecting itself into private business in order to grant itself more power at the expense of the citizenry.

It also says, "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". We are discussing what discrimination is unjust, if all discrimination is unjust, then government "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another" is unjust. Now, you could argue that that does not apply, because that is Google's second definition. However, that is the first definition in both Wiktionary and Dictionary.com. I am not really basing my argument on any one dictionary, what I am basing my argument on is the fact the it is unreasonable to presume the conclusion in a debate. That favors the use of the general definition for the sake of this discussion.

This is a semantics discussion. I already told you I am not interested. You just need to state you preference and I will use it. Don't argue whether discrimination have to unjust or not - that's not up for debate. Your preference on which definition to use is just that, your preference, there is no argument.

Ok, but I have been in two other discussion on this same thread, and both of them were making the argument that discrimination is unjust by definition. I will try to limit myself to the following definition general definition:  "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually". Though this not absolutely general and does not include simple personal preference, it is general enough to assure that the government is not exempted from the same standard applied to the general population.

Yes, it is on our side in that it restricts government action. The Constitution lays out what the federal government can do and how it can do it. The Bill or Rights state what the federal government can not do.

Right, and your point is?

In what way?

One is a business, the other isn't?

How is it different for someone who is not in business?

There is no difference for me. There is no accounting for someone's private feelings, you'll have to ask the person who do feel there is a difference.

If there is no difference, then you are noting a distinction without a difference.

Well, requiring people to do things under threat of fine and imprisonment breeds resentment and facilitates the establishment of a grievance industry.

And that's a bad thing how, bearing in minds "the things" in question is immoral?

According to whom? Someone being aggrieved does not make something a moral imperative. Also, even many moral imperatives do not require legislation.

The only exception is that a sale can be forced if it is for government use, in the public interest. Any other time one should be able to refuse to sell to anybody at any time for any reason.

I disagree.

That is fine, but your disagreement does not justify the fining and/or imprisonment of those that do so.

No X is not X'. The latter has a '.

I thought that was a typo, my bad; but that too was covered by my original answer too, the answer still hasn't changed: If business offers X' to one set of customers are they obligated to sell X' to another set of customers. If business does not offer X' to one set of customers are they not obligated to sell X' to another set of customers. I used a variable exactly because you can substitute anything you like into it.

That was not the question. The former is not exactly like the latter. The reason I used the prime symbol is to point out that we are talking about a difference. How much of a difference must there be between two products or services for the seller of that product or service to be excused from selling it and who decides that?

Does not winning a race mean that one did not compete? Is the winner the only one who competes.

Depending on how badly you lose - if you a given a thrashing then "you cannot complete" is exactly the right phrase to describe the situation.

Exactly how much is a "thrashing" and who decides that?

The stretch is that someone can do something in such a way that no one else can stay in the same business or come up with an alternative. This once again is the monopoly argument. Again, name one company that has been able to establish or maintain a monopoly without government interference.

I am not aware of any. How about I name you a set of government legislation designed to combat monopolies instead?

You mean superfluous government legislation? Should the government legislate against demons, because some of us believe they exist?

In your opinion and mine. However, inaction is not catering. Catering to discrimination is Jim Crow and "affirmative action". When the government established Jim Crow laws, it was catering to that...

I was referring to some hypothetical private bus company that cater "whites only" or "blacks in the back."

Oh you were talking about discrimination in catering, not catering to discrimination. I'm not calling for catering to discrimination, but the discriminatory use of assets to grow the economy. That, I contend is best left in the hands of the owners of that property, how have a vested interest in the judicious use of that property and have to deal with competition and innovation. I think placing control of it in the hands of politicians and/or bureaucrats who can use it to their ends with the ability to outlaw and punish competition and little incentive to innovate.

Had they not catered to that form of discrimination, the worst case scenario is that there would be some private buses that had that rule and some that did not. Consumers would have a choice and if the public did not want that kind of thing, it would become a niche service at best.

And that was bad thing. The better scenario is that there are no buses that had that rule. The government stepped it to ensure it.

Then why are people still saying that there is still rampant discrimination? Either all of this legislation did not work, or someone is hyping it up.

So, you are arguing that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News would not exist without government regulation?

No, Fox is one of the large companies waiting to snap up pop up stations and media.

So, you are telling me that' after CNN was able to establish itself in a business that was considered unbreakable due to the believed oligopoly of the big three, a company that was seen as a bunch of nobodies 20 years ago, and was give no chance of being able to compete, now has a stranglehold on the news? How did that happen. Could it have been competition and innovation. Government was definitely no help. Also, what about talk radio? Why did it take the repeal of the "fairness doctrine" for am radio to thrive? The internet is currently contradicting your theory. How is it the you see Fox or any of the rest of the Big Media buying that up?

In a free market both parties can demand all they like. The other party is not required to cater to those demands. Currently, an employee(seller) can refuse to cater a "gay" wedding on religious grounds and the employer(buyer) is required to make reasonable accommodation. However, if the employer(seller) does not provide catering service to the "guy wedding" (buyer) for the same reason, the employer is subject to fine and/or imprisonment.

Right, and that's how it should be.

So, are you saying that a customer is not required to find someone else to make his cake, but an employer can be forced to find other employees to make that same cake, while continuing to provide employment for the employee that refused to make that cake?

I know you do not mean swimming pool, but you may as well. Sure, someone with a reservoir can survive a drought, but not forever or against all competition and innovation. There is no monopoly in history that has ever survived without government assistance.

I still don't know what monopoly you are referring to.

The same one you are referring to. The one you contend that no one can compete against. As to monopolies that existed with government assistance, the East India Trading Company of "Boston Teas Party" fame is a classic example. That said, I am not arguing that there are monopolies, I am saying that to the extent there are they exist do to government action. High regulation favors big business. So, the more the government micromanages the economy the more, not less likely, monopolies are.

Even organized crime is sustained by government. Without prohibition, the mafia could not have gained the prominence that it did.

There for all drugs should be legalised?

They should not be totally banded, as alcohol was. Personally, I don't support many drugs of any kind. However, the war on drug proves one thing for sure, the government can not regulate a commodity out of existence. It can only effect how much of it is open market and how much is black market.

Apart from government interference, the rich get richer only by providing a superior product at a lower price. To do that they must in turn do business with vendors and employees who do the same thing. That leaves them subject to competition and innovation by others beyond their control. if they stop producing a superior product at a lower price, the stop becoming richer.

And they can do that because they are rich.

They can do it to a greater degree, because they are rich, but why is that bad? The public is provided with better products and services at lower marginal prices, and people are employed and encouraged in competing and innovating, resulting in a more vibrant economy.

[Bust Nak]

No, we are talking about a government designation created by government mandates and taxation. The amount of control is negotiated between the buyer and seller of labor. Based on the nature of that contract, the government mandates certain things, including minimum wage requirements. So, this is not a matter of the employer "holding all of the cards", but the government deeming certain contracts in which certain rights and privileges are granted to the buyer, by the seller, as subject to it's jurisdiction. In other words, this is the government, for it's own purposes, interjecting itself into private business in order to grant itself more power at the expense of the citizenry.

Correction, for the benefit of citizenry.

Ok, but I have been in two other discussion on this same thread, and both of them were making the argument that discrimination is unjust by definition. I will try to limit myself to the following definition general definition:  "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually". Though this not absolutely general and does not include simple personal preference, it is general enough to assure that the government is not exempted from the same standard applied to the general population.

Fine.

If there is no difference, then you are noting a distinction without a difference.

Not my problem, I am not the one who thinks gay wedding is distinct from a straight wedding. Indeed that's why businesses are obliged to provide serve gay wedding as they would straight ones.

According to whom?

According to both you and I. You have already granted me that discrimination based on sexuality is not something that ought to be done.

Also, even many moral imperatives do not require legislation.

True enough, we don't legislate lying or adultery.

That is fine, but your disagreement does not justify the fining and/or imprisonment of those that do so.

Sure, the same applies to you, your preference that one should be able to refuse to sell to anybody at any time for any reason, does not justify not fining and/or imprisonment of those who do refuse to sell.

That was not the question. The former is not exactly like the latter.

It is already covered by my original answer. You asked if a business needs to offer X' to gay people, if they offer X to straight people. The answer depends on whether they offer X' to straight people - if the business does not offer X' to anyone then they don't need to offer X' to one particular group. If the business offers X' to someone then they need to offer X' to everyone. Also, since they do offer X (without the prime) to one group, they are required to offer X to all groups.

The reason I used the prime symbol is to point out that we are talking about a difference.

I know. The answer hasn't changed one bit. Whether X' is to be available for a minority, depends entirely on whether X' is available for anyone. It does not matter whether X is on offer or not.

How much of a difference must there be between two products or services for the seller of that product or service to be excused from selling it and who decides that?

The question says "between two products" you've already presupposed that they are different enough to be counted as two. But I think I understand what you are getting at, Judge or jury decide when it comes to the law. I do if you are talking outside of the court.

My turn to ask: Is a cake with one male and one female name on it, a different product to a cake with two male names on it? What about if there are two brides figurines instead of one of each gender?

Or the same product, a cake with two names of it; the same product, a cake with two figurines on it?

Exactly how much is a "thrashing" and who decides that?

That's subjective. Being put out of business seems like a easy to agreed to threshold, is that good for you?

You mean superfluous government legislation?

No, I mean antitrust laws.

Should the government legislate against demons, because some of us believe they exist?

No.

Oh you were talking about discrimination in catering, not catering to discrimination.

No, I was talking about providing a specialist service to cater for racist, that sounds very much like catering to discrimination to me. Was that not clear?

I'm not calling for catering to discrimination, but the discriminatory use of assets to grow the economy.

The record will show that you proposed allowing a bus company to serve whites only. How is that not catering to discrimination? Is this another case of miscommunication?

That, I contend is best left in the hands of the owners of that property, how have a vested interest in the judicious use of that property and have to deal with competition and innovation. I think placing control of it in the hands of politicians and/or bureaucrats who can use it to their ends with the ability to outlaw and punish competition and little incentive to innovate.

If it means no bus company can refuse to serve blacks, then so be it. Am I being clear on what my priorities are? Protecting the rights of people trumps financial security, competition and innovation.

Then why are people still saying that there is still rampant discrimination? Either all of this legislation did not work, or someone is hyping it up.

There are things that government cannot legislate. There is rampant unjust discrimination, where the government can intervene, such as with businesses, they should.

So, you are telling me that' after CNN was able to establish itself in a business that was considered unbreakable due to the believed oligopoly of the big three, a company that was seen as a bunch of nobodies 20 years ago, and was give no chance of being able to compete, now has a stranglehold on the news?

What? No, they had a chance and made it big.

Could it have been competition and innovation. Government was definitely no help.

What made you think that? Antitrust laws aren't just for show.

Also, what about talk radio? Why did it take the repeal of the "fairness doctrine" for am radio to thrive?

Don't know what exactly you are referring to here, but the reason seems easy enough to guess. Less barriers to entry means more entries?

The internet is currently contradicting your theory. How is it the you see Fox or any of the rest of the Big Media buying that up?

They can't, they are not big enough to buy up the internet. I am not seeing how that is supposed to contradict my theory.

So, are you saying that a customer is not required to find someone else to make his cake, but an employer can be forced to find other employees to make that same cake, while continuing to provide employment for the employee that refused to make that cake?

Yes, that is correct. An employer should cater for the religious conviction of the employee within reason, but cannot discriminate against a customer base on the owner's religious convictions.

The same one you are referring to. The one you contend that no one can compete against.

They don't exist though thanks to antitrust laws.

As to monopolies that existed with government assistance, the East India Trading Company of "Boston Teas Party" fame is a classic example. That said, I am not arguing that there are monopolies, I am saying that to the extent there are they exist do to government action. High regulation favors big business. So, the more the government micromanages the economy the more, not less likely, monopolies are.

And yet government micromanages is the thing that is hold back monopolies.

They should not be totally banded, as alcohol was. Personally, I don't support many drugs of any kind. However, the war on drug proves one thing for sure, the government can not regulate a commodity out of existence. It can only effect how much of it is open market and how much is black market.

I can give you that much.

They can do it to a greater degree, because they are rich, but why is that bad?

It means the rich gets richer. It means fewer but more powerful companies, it means consumers and employee loses out.

[Clownboat]

No, what you are arguing for is making it illegal for someone to walk passed the man going to Jerusalem

I did not argue that. I only pointed out that you are not being a good Samaritan here. Myself, now an unbeliever is more closely following the words of Jesus. I trust the irony is not lost on yourself, nor the readers.

Do you believe that we should enact 'Love your neighbor as yourself.’ as legislation?

No, but I would encourage you to do so yourself, yes, even if the person is gay.

Currently, it is not illegal to refrain from rendering assistance. I never said that I would not render assistance to someone in critical condition, or I would not encourage others to render assistance in that case. However, legislating such a thing is rather problematic.

I'm just not clear what you are on about here. You are aware that discrimination is illegal, right? Why you want to comment about legislating assistance is confusing.

I am not the one introducing the bible into this discussion. Do you want to discuss how this should be handled under Torah law, US law or based on the best economic effect?

I don't want to discuss either, I would like you to answer my question though:
"What happened to spare the rod and spoil the child?" Still relevant in your opinion, or is the Bible barbaric and archaic in this regard?

No need, but I am curious about your thoughts on sparing the rod and spoiling the child. Is modern psychology superb compared to these ancient writings?

"Spare the rod" is an idiom, that could apply literally in certain circumstances and positive reinforcement is also a useful tool that is supported by the Scriptures in certain circumstances. However, neither one of them is a one size fits all solution.

Nice dodge. Should we spank naughty children with rods?
Proverbs 13:24
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

You have lost me. Why can a farmer that owns a firetruck not drive it into town whenever he likes?

That is my point. What you are saying is that if the farmer drives his truck into town for me and I give him money, he is obligated to do the same for my neighbor in exchange for money. I am asking if this applies if the farmer drives his truck into town for me because I do his bookkeeping.

Is the farmer running a business with his firetruck that he offers to the general public?
If so, we have anti discrimination laws that he, like all other businesses must follow. How is it that you are still confused about this?

It saddens me that people need a government to get them to do many things, but that does not mean that the government should force people to do those things under threat of fine and/or imprisonment. There is a significant difference between what I want people to do and what I should insist that the government force them to do.

Readers, let it be noted that bluethread thinks that anti discrimination laws equate to forcing people to do things. If anyone knows how to fix this, please help. Discrimination laws prevent discrimination, they don't force people to do things. Please explain the parts that confuse you most.

Bluethread, you must have missed this question, so here it is again:
"Would you discriminate against blacks, Jews and/or Muslims if a government didn't tell you that you couldn't (in a public business setting of course)?"

You are the one who is equating all discrimination. I am just trying to find out why government discrimination is acceptable and private discrimination is not.

You failed to show that discrimination is happening when we equally treat all people under the age of 18 the same by not allowing them to buy cigarettes. You would have a point if only gays under the age of 18 couldn't buy cigs, but that is clearly not happening. The under 18 yrs of age humans are being treated as equals.

That is false, all 18 year olds are being discriminated against based on age. That is why it is called age discrimination. They are not being denied service based on their individual ability to handle alcohol.

Nice try, but what group of people under the age of 18 are being discriminated against?
Either way, your point is ugly IMO. Your argument seems to be, "since the government treats all humans under 18 the same in regards to buying cigs, and since I think this is discrimination for some reason, I should be able to discriminate against gay humans?"
Is that why you keep bringing up this government discrimination that you and I don't even agree is a real thing? I suppose it is easier to talk about that then it is the on topic discrimination of gays that is actually happening.

Imagine being in front of Jesus trying to defend yourself with, "but the government does it too!"

That is not a different word. That is the primary Wiktionary definition of discrimination.

I was mistaken. The way it is worded reads like its the definition of discernment, not discrimination.
What is your point? Are you trying to argue that gays were not being discriminated against in this case with the bakery?

Yes, you chose to use the first google definition. The other google definition is the first Wiktionary definition. The one I am presenting is included in the first definition on dictionary. com. It is the second one in Webster's. Even though, you say I can use whichever I wish, I am not being capricious in the definition I am using. I am using the general definition, because doing so does not presume the conclusion. If discrimination is always unjust, then one should be able to show that using the general definition.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop warring with language.
In the wiki definition: "The setting apart of a person or group of people in a negative way, as in being discriminated against."
I assume you are uncomfortable, as a Christian, discussing issues that point out behavior that Jesus would not approve of, but the meaning of discrimination is not what this topic is about. Were gays being discriminated against with this bakery? Should companies be allowed to discriminate and if so, should they discriminate against more than just gay humans? Should we include Mexicans, Jews and more?

What I notice is that you don't seem to have any ground to stand on for why we should discriminate against gay people, so you can do nothing more than complain about definitions.
Why gay people, and should we include more groups of humans to treat differently?

I am doing much more that complaining about the definition. Your argument is that discrimination is unjust or prejudiced, and you based that on the definition you chose.

Stop warring with language! I have even stopped using 'unjust' and 'with prejudice' to try to appease you. What you don't get is that my point does not change if we look at a definition of discrimination that doesn't include those words.

I have referred to other groups of humans, that are being discriminated against in compliance with a government mandate, specifically people under the age of 18, and, since you changed that to 18 year olds, even 18 year olds

And I have explained why this is not discrimination and even told you how you could show that I was wrong. You failed to show that I was wrong when you invented maturity as a type of human.

That is because you are defining the topic in a way the presumes the premise.

Do the readers notice that I have stopped using those words for no other reason than to try to keep Bluethread on topic? And what do we get, more discussion about discrimination.
Why wont Bluethread tell us what he likes about discriminating against our fellow gay humans? Why can't he explain which groups of humans we should discriminate against and which we should not?
It's not hard... watch. I think we should seek to eliminate all discrimination if there is a group of humans that are having a distinction in favor of or against them or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

You also make claims, i.e. discrimination is always unjust and prejudice, which you change or deny when it is convenient.

Please explain what you are confused about. I'll do my best to help you like I did with the non selling of cigarettes to all humans equally that are under the age of 18.

Is discrimination always unjust and prejudice?

Yes and no. For me, I see no discrimination in the equal treatment of 18 year olds in regards to not buying cigs. So that is a no. However, for some reason, you seem to think that there is a group of 18 year olds that is being discriminated against. You even went so far as to try to create maturity as a class. Your desperation has been noted.

why is it ok for the government to mandate it with regard to the sale of alcohol 18 year olds and the sale of cigarettes to those under the age of 18?

Because there is no group of 18 year olds that are being discriminated against due to group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.
(Notice how unjust and with prejudice are not words that are needed to make my point?)
Perhaps you should start a war with what the word 'merit' means next.

This determination is being decided by the 'criminal status', not their gender, religion or race. So we could quibble over whether or not this is discrimination, but I trust you get my point.

I am glad we agree. I am not quibbling over whether that is discrimination, it clearly is.

Then we don't agree, because clearly I said that we could quibble over whether or not this is discrimination.

You just told me to hold my horses, because you said that not all discrimination is unjust in your opinion.

Right... because, like in regards to not allowing violent criminals to buy guns, I don't see them being discriminated against.
Violent criminals are being judged by their individual merit, which is their violence.
Would you argue that it is unjust to not allow violent criminals to buy guns? If not, then I don't understand your complaints here.

You then use felons not being allowed to own guns as an example. Now, you say that these criminals are not being discriminating against. That is why I am enquiring about your use of the English language. If keeping felons from buying guns is not discrimination, then what is an example of just discrimination?

Not allowing violent felons to buy guns is something I don't find to be 'unjust'. I also am basing this on the felons individual merit. You know, their merit of being a violent felon. Like I said, we could quibble over the idea that discrimination is even happening in this case, but if you want to instist that it is, I'll argue that it is 'just' discrimination (and therefore not discrimination).

I am making lots of consolations on your behalf to try to keep you on task. It is very hard.

I never asked you to change the definition reference from sex to gender. You chose to change it yourself, without justifying that change. So, why are you arguing that the definition applies to something that is not listed as an example of unjust in the definition? Again, I have no problem with using a broader definition as long as we do not presume that all discrimination is unjust. Rather than discriminating by calling all discrimination unjust, maybe we should judge each case of discrimination on it's own merits.

Whether it is just or not is important to me. Your mileage obviously varies. If you want to say that discrimination is happening, and if the case could be made that it is 'just' discrimination, then it could be argued that no actual discrimination is happening.

Do you find it just if we didn't allow black people to ride public transportation?
What if we didn't allow gays into public restaurants?
Now how about if we don't allow violent felons to buy guns?
No for 1 and 2 for me, yes for 3.
How about you?

I think I made it clear that I do think it is discrimination, but I do not think that private sector discrimination should be illegal.

Why should the public sector be able to make a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit? (Something I personally find unjust)
Please give us your best answer to see if it is convincing.

No, I am discussing discrimination in general. I am discussing definitions, because it has been argued that all discrimination is unjust by definition.

I find discrimination to be unjust. What do you find just about allowing businesses to make a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit?

I am just trying to determine how that squares with what the government does, since the implication is that the government should be stopping private sector discrimination using the threat of fine and/or imprisonment, rather than encouraging competition and innovation.

I can just see you at the Pearly Gates. Yes Jesus, I was discriminatory against gay humans. But the government did it to!!!
The government cannot wash away your sins, nor would they make the mandates of Jesus go away.
To your point, can you list any other types of government discrimination? Specifically where it is happening due to making distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit?

However, the government dose not treat groups of people equally.

Derp! You mean, 3 year olds should be able to drive because 18 year olds can?
I'm looking for something 'unjust', or someone being treated 'with prejudice', or making distinctions in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

That said, are you arguing that the government should impose your view of a particular religion on me?

No

How is that treating everybody equally?

Non sequitur

Do you think that the government should be in the practice if passing legislation to make people more "Christlike"?

Nope. I do wonder why you seem to not be as Christlike as myself though.

And I reject this explanation because you cannot identify a group, within those under the age of 18 that is being discriminated against. What is the proposed mechanism to identify if someone should be in the mature group or not? For me it just seems like you are trying to invent a group.

Age, that is the mechanism. I am not inventing a group. The government is recognizing every one under the age of 18 as a group.

And treating them equally, which I argue is not discrimination. What you don't seem to realize is that 18 yr old includes all types of humans. Black, white, gay, straight, religious, non religious. Which makes trying to argue that 18 is a group that can be treated in a discriminatory manner difficult. We were all 18 at one time and we were all treated the same. Treating black 18 year olds differently than Mexican 18 yr olds would be discrimination.

They are saying that 17 year olds are like 2 year olds and not like 18 year olds when it comes to smoking.

You must be 18 to buy smokes. Please make your case for discrimination. Is there a group included in under 18 that someone is making distinctions in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than their age?

In the case of the healthy 17 year old Rhodes Scholar, that is not just discrimination in the general sense, but discrimination based on classification and not merit.

That you equate this to allowing companies to not serve gays, blacks, Muslims and what have you says a lot about you. Not sure what you are trying to do here, but your fruits are showing.

he would be forced to drive to another town or not have a baker make them a cake. Please explain what this has to do with discrimination.

Forced by whom? Why do you frame this as a case of force and not choice?

Why did you not tell me what this has to do with discrimination and why did you ignore that he could not have cake as an option (which therefore would remove any force you wish to imagine). If this is not just another red herring, please let me know so I can address it.

So, where did this surgeon come from, if there are no black or "gay" people in this hypothetical SMALL town?

Must I really hold your hand? Just imagine that he is a retired surgeon that bought a hobby farm in a small town so we can discuss like adults.

Why isn't the government of that town required to establish a bakery at taxpayer expense to keep that poor surgeon from being "forced" to drive to another town?

If you want to make this argument, please do it in another thread.

Please explain why I should be forced to pay McDonald's or its employees if I choose to go to Wendy's that day instead. Make your best argument please.

I did, because we know you went to Wendy's because there are black people working at the McDonald's.

Then I'm racist. Not sure what this has to do with discrimination nor why I as a racist (hypothetically) should be forced to pay anything to McDonald's.
Perhaps we have come to the root of the issue? Are you 'racist' when it comes to gay people. Should this 'racism' be something governments should protect when it comes to public businesses?

Do you look at the gay group of humans and not see them as equals or what?

They are equal to me in some ways and different in others.

Really?!? How are gays not equals when compared to you?
How about black humans? Are they your equals, or are they down there with gays?
Jews?

Though, I am not an egalitarian, I appreciate the motives behind some people thinking that all people should be treated as equals. I just don't think that philosophy should be forced on the public as a matter of law.

To bad. I don't want you braking into my house, and I don't want you to be able to refuse a service to gays, blacks, women, Jews, etc.. that you offer to the general public. Outside of disrcimination laws, you can be as racist as you want and I'll even defend that right (though I would not condone it).

I believe the best way to establish appropriate treatment is for people to voluntarily engage in arms length transactions with whoever they please, buyer and seller alike.

Perhaps that can happen once we abolish racism, but until then, we should act like good Samaritans IMO.