Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Head of Texas GOP Tells Women To Stop Suing For Equal Rights

Page 2 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Mar 2014, 2:36 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again,

Got examples of this?

Quote:
as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!).

That's a question that should be reduced simply to whose rights trump whose, the patron or the business owner and I suppose a case could be made for both.
Personally, I don't see how someone can automatically and accurately distinguish between a gay and straight customer on sight each time to be able deny them service.


Both Rand Paul and now some idiot legislator in South Dakota have stated businesses should be able to turn away any customer, even if it's a matter of the customer's race. Their argument is, the free market will weed out these evil businesses, since libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of all people, and that people will naturally do the right thing without government interference.


While I do not condone discrimination based on race, on the other hand I don't want to see businesses being told they cannot deny service in their establishment. This is a property rights issue more than anything and the right to deny service for whatever reason should be at the discretion of the owner. The miniscule number of businesses that will deny service based solely on race isn't worthy of pursuing and certainly not worthy of undermining ALL business owner's rights.

I don't even know why this thread is in News and Current Events when it's more of a PPR topic.


Businesses can deny service - to the intoxicated, the rude, or the violent. But then there are the rights of customers who have the right to be treated just like anyone else.
And to say that the number of businesses that would practice racial discrimination is miniscule is very likely true - but only because of laws ensuring the rights of customers that have been in effect for decades. It must be remembered, there were plenty of businesses that had denied service to blacks even in places where it was not the law at one time. And where racial segregation was the law, it was happily supported by business owners.

:roll:
This is 2014, not 1964. Do you really think that businesses would start putting "Whites Only" signs on their doors? The very small fraction of the one percent (if any) that actually would arent enough to lose sleep over. Really, I don't think that apartheid is the goal of those R politicians in Texas.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,190
Location: Portland, Oregon

19 Mar 2014, 2:49 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Question: is equal pay a right?


Yes.


I agree.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,660

19 Mar 2014, 2:56 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again,

Got examples of this?

Quote:
as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!).

That's a question that should be reduced simply to whose rights trump whose, the patron or the business owner and I suppose a case could be made for both.
Personally, I don't see how someone can automatically and accurately distinguish between a gay and straight customer on sight each time to be able deny them service.


Both Rand Paul and now some idiot legislator in South Dakota have stated businesses should be able to turn away any customer, even if it's a matter of the customer's race. Their argument is, the free market will weed out these evil businesses, since libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of all people, and that people will naturally do the right thing without government interference.


While I do not condone discrimination based on race, on the other hand I don't want to see businesses being told they cannot deny service in their establishment. This is a property rights issue more than anything and the right to deny service for whatever reason should be at the discretion of the owner. The miniscule number of businesses that will deny service based solely on race isn't worthy of pursuing and certainly not worthy of undermining ALL business owner's rights.

I don't even know why this thread is in News and Current Events when it's more of a PPR topic.


The Social Darwinist Ayn Rand viewpoint is exactly why the original topic of this post is an issue. Based on what you've just said, presumably you believe that a privately held company has the right to pay women (or blacks, jews, etc) less for the same work if they choose to? Was the Civil rights act was an overstepping of government power?

Example:
Today in a semi-regulated market, Wal-Mart (the largest employer in the US) is also the biggest drag on on our welfare system. Paying a less than livable wage to it's employees and forcing them to get goverment subsidies just to get by. With more regulation and a higher minimum wage this would stop being an issue.

Yet every major libertarian viewpoint I've seen wants to ditch the welfare system, minimum wage, equal pay and any other worker protection laws almost entirely. Not sure how that's supposed to happen without 99% of the US turning into Somalia while the other 1% live in ivory towers overlooking the squaler.

Enlighten me please. Ideally not with an explaination that relies on the inherent kindness of human nature to make any sense.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Mar 2014, 3:25 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
The Social Darwinist Ayn Rand viewpoint is exactly why the original topic of this post is an issue. Based on what you've just said, presumably you believe that a privately held company has the right to pay women (or blacks, jews, etc) less for the same work if they choose to? Was the Civil rights act was an overstepping of government power?

:lmao:
You liberals sure get a lot of milage out of old Ayn Rand. That aside, thanks for taking me out of context since we were simply talking about a business owner's right to deny service in their establishment.

Quote:
Example:
Today in a semi-regulated market, Wal-Mart (the largest employer in the US) is also the biggest drag on on our welfare system. Paying a less than livable wage to it's employees and forcing them to get goverment subsidies just to get by. With more regulation and a higher minimum wage this would stop being an issue.
The only way to break Wal-Mart's back is to stop doing business with them. They are too well connected to bring down any other way.

Quote:
Yet every major libertarian viewpoint I've seen wants to ditch the welfare system, minimum wage, equal pay and any other worker protection laws almost entirely. Not sure how that's supposed to happen without 99% of the US turning into Somalia while the other 1% live in ivory towers overlooking the squaler.
I'm a conservative (worse than a libertarian).
And it's spelled squalor not squaler.

Quote:
Enlighten me please. Ideally not with an explaination that relies on the inherent kindness of human nature to make any sense.
I assure you that government is no kinder than this "human nature" you distrust so much.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Mar 2014, 4:50 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again,

Got examples of this?

Quote:
as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!).

That's a question that should be reduced simply to whose rights trump whose, the patron or the business owner and I suppose a case could be made for both.
Personally, I don't see how someone can automatically and accurately distinguish between a gay and straight customer on sight each time to be able deny them service.


Both Rand Paul and now some idiot legislator in South Dakota have stated businesses should be able to turn away any customer, even if it's a matter of the customer's race. Their argument is, the free market will weed out these evil businesses, since libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of all people, and that people will naturally do the right thing without government interference.


While I do not condone discrimination based on race, on the other hand I don't want to see businesses being told they cannot deny service in their establishment. This is a property rights issue more than anything and the right to deny service for whatever reason should be at the discretion of the owner. The miniscule number of businesses that will deny service based solely on race isn't worthy of pursuing and certainly not worthy of undermining ALL business owner's rights.

I don't even know why this thread is in News and Current Events when it's more of a PPR topic.


Businesses can deny service - to the intoxicated, the rude, or the violent. But then there are the rights of customers who have the right to be treated just like anyone else.
And to say that the number of businesses that would practice racial discrimination is miniscule is very likely true - but only because of laws ensuring the rights of customers that have been in effect for decades. It must be remembered, there were plenty of businesses that had denied service to blacks even in places where it was not the law at one time. And where racial segregation was the law, it was happily supported by business owners.

:roll:
This is 2014, not 1964. Do you really think that businesses would start putting "Whites Only" signs on their doors? The very small fraction of the one percent (if any) that actually would arent enough to lose sleep over. Really, I don't think that apartheid is the goal of those R politicians in Texas.


I believe I said businesses don't discriminate like that anymore solely because of civil rights legislation. But what about businesses being able to turn away gays, or adherents of different religions, all for the sake of the dictates of their religion? Such a thing is still far more likely, even today.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Mar 2014, 5:11 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again,

Got examples of this?

Quote:
as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!).

That's a question that should be reduced simply to whose rights trump whose, the patron or the business owner and I suppose a case could be made for both.
Personally, I don't see how someone can automatically and accurately distinguish between a gay and straight customer on sight each time to be able deny them service.


Both Rand Paul and now some idiot legislator in South Dakota have stated businesses should be able to turn away any customer, even if it's a matter of the customer's race. Their argument is, the free market will weed out these evil businesses, since libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of all people, and that people will naturally do the right thing without government interference.


While I do not condone discrimination based on race, on the other hand I don't want to see businesses being told they cannot deny service in their establishment. This is a property rights issue more than anything and the right to deny service for whatever reason should be at the discretion of the owner. The miniscule number of businesses that will deny service based solely on race isn't worthy of pursuing and certainly not worthy of undermining ALL business owner's rights.

I don't even know why this thread is in News and Current Events when it's more of a PPR topic.


Businesses can deny service - to the intoxicated, the rude, or the violent. But then there are the rights of customers who have the right to be treated just like anyone else.
And to say that the number of businesses that would practice racial discrimination is miniscule is very likely true - but only because of laws ensuring the rights of customers that have been in effect for decades. It must be remembered, there were plenty of businesses that had denied service to blacks even in places where it was not the law at one time. And where racial segregation was the law, it was happily supported by business owners.

:roll:
This is 2014, not 1964. Do you really think that businesses would start putting "Whites Only" signs on their doors? The very small fraction of the one percent (if any) that actually would arent enough to lose sleep over. Really, I don't think that apartheid is the goal of those R politicians in Texas.


I believe I said businesses don't discriminate like that anymore solely because of civil rights legislation. But what about businesses being able to turn away gays, or adherents of different religions, all for the sake of the dictates of their religion? Such a thing is still far more likely, even today.


If I understand right, the fear from the left is that the *current or recent political crisis from the republicans **challenges that anti-discrimination legislation at some level, real or imagined, and you believe that the clock is going to be turned back 50 years. Actually, this is not even what the thread is about but you tossed it in there.

* I'm not even going to bother looking it up to see what the actual content is. You might have noticed by now that I don't panic and start threads over about or over what any politician wants to do, conservative or liberal.

** Challenge as in it may have some language not in total lockstep with certain parts of anti-discrimination legislation, past and present.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Mar 2014, 10:25 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again,

Got examples of this?

Quote:
as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!).

That's a question that should be reduced simply to whose rights trump whose, the patron or the business owner and I suppose a case could be made for both.
Personally, I don't see how someone can automatically and accurately distinguish between a gay and straight customer on sight each time to be able deny them service.


Both Rand Paul and now some idiot legislator in South Dakota have stated businesses should be able to turn away any customer, even if it's a matter of the customer's race. Their argument is, the free market will weed out these evil businesses, since libertarians seem to believe in the inherent goodness of all people, and that people will naturally do the right thing without government interference.


While I do not condone discrimination based on race, on the other hand I don't want to see businesses being told they cannot deny service in their establishment. This is a property rights issue more than anything and the right to deny service for whatever reason should be at the discretion of the owner. The miniscule number of businesses that will deny service based solely on race isn't worthy of pursuing and certainly not worthy of undermining ALL business owner's rights.

I don't even know why this thread is in News and Current Events when it's more of a PPR topic.


Businesses can deny service - to the intoxicated, the rude, or the violent. But then there are the rights of customers who have the right to be treated just like anyone else.
And to say that the number of businesses that would practice racial discrimination is miniscule is very likely true - but only because of laws ensuring the rights of customers that have been in effect for decades. It must be remembered, there were plenty of businesses that had denied service to blacks even in places where it was not the law at one time. And where racial segregation was the law, it was happily supported by business owners.

:roll:
This is 2014, not 1964. Do you really think that businesses would start putting "Whites Only" signs on their doors? The very small fraction of the one percent (if any) that actually would arent enough to lose sleep over. Really, I don't think that apartheid is the goal of those R politicians in Texas.


I believe I said businesses don't discriminate like that anymore solely because of civil rights legislation. But what about businesses being able to turn away gays, or adherents of different religions, all for the sake of the dictates of their religion? Such a thing is still far more likely, even today.


If I understand right, the fear from the left is that the *current or recent political crisis from the republicans **challenges that anti-discrimination legislation at some level, real or imagined, and you believe that the clock is going to be turned back 50 years. Actually, this is not even what the thread is about but you tossed it in there.

* I'm not even going to bother looking it up to see what the actual content is. You might have noticed by now that I don't panic and start threads over about or over what any politician wants to do, conservative or liberal.

** Challenge as in it may have some language not in total lockstep with certain parts of anti-discrimination legislation, past and present.


Civil rights are civil rights, whether they're for women, blacks, or gays. One struggle bleeds into the others. That's why the conversation has somehow drifted in this direction.
As for discrimination happening today - - again, the right had attempted it in Arizona, till Brewer shot it down.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

19 Mar 2014, 10:30 pm

So by "negotiate like men" I assume they mean "bribe everything that moves"?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Mar 2014, 10:36 pm

TheGoggles wrote:
So by "negotiate like men" I assume they mean "bribe everything that moves"?


Considering that Republicans have taken a decidedly anti-labor stance, in which union representation and negotiation on the part of workers is viewed as something to crack down on, I think the point is, women workers like men workers should just shut up and cower before their corporate overlords.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Mar 2014, 11:07 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Civil rights are civil rights, whether they're for women, blacks, or gays. One struggle bleeds into the others. That's why the conversation has somehow drifted in this direction.
As for discrimination happening today - - again, the right had attempted it in Arizona, till Brewer shot it down.

And then there's grasping at straws and crying wolf at anything that can be made to look like discrimination or civil rights issues.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Mar 2014, 11:26 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Civil rights are civil rights, whether they're for women, blacks, or gays. One struggle bleeds into the others. That's why the conversation has somehow drifted in this direction.
As for discrimination happening today - - again, the right had attempted it in Arizona, till Brewer shot it down.

And then there's grasping at straws and crying wolf at anything that can be made to look like discrimination or civil rights issues.


You don't think paying women less money than men for the same work isn't a civil rights issue, do you?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Blue_Jackets_fan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 322

20 Mar 2014, 12:25 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again, as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!). Putting the burden on the discriminated against party seems to be the Republican answer to everything from women's rights, to minority and gay rights.


Can you show me a link where the GOP are advocating separate lunch counters for Gays????



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Mar 2014, 12:27 am

Blue_Jackets_fan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again, as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!). Putting the burden on the discriminated against party seems to be the Republican answer to everything from women's rights, to minority and gay rights.


Can you show me a link where the GOP are advocating separate lunch counters for Gays????


I think you know they've advocated giving business owners the right to refuse service to gay customers, if said business owner's religious sensibilities are allegedly offended.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

20 Mar 2014, 9:31 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Civil rights are civil rights, whether they're for women, blacks, or gays. One struggle bleeds into the others. That's why the conversation has somehow drifted in this direction.
As for discrimination happening today - - again, the right had attempted it in Arizona, till Brewer shot it down.

And then there's grasping at straws and crying wolf at anything that can be made to look like discrimination or civil rights issues.


You don't think paying women less money than men for the same work isn't a civil rights issue, do you?

Where do women, by law, get paid less than men?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

20 Mar 2014, 9:37 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Blue_Jackets_fan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again, as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!). Putting the burden on the discriminated against party seems to be the Republican answer to everything from women's rights, to minority and gay rights.


Can you show me a link where the GOP are advocating separate lunch counters for Gays????


I think you know they've advocated giving business owners the right to refuse service to gay customers, if said business owner's religious sensibilities are allegedly offended.

More like giving business the right to refuse service to anyone, which I believe they already have. This is more about busting the balls of private business and stifling entrepreneurialism than gay rights. They'e just using the gay rights rationale merely as a tool. :roll:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Mar 2014, 12:23 am

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Blue_Jackets_fan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Doesn't surprise me. It's becoming popular these days for Republicans to advocate racially segregated lunch counters again, as well as denying service to gays (businesses should have the right to serve whoever they like, after all!). Putting the burden on the discriminated against party seems to be the Republican answer to everything from women's rights, to minority and gay rights.


Can you show me a link where the GOP are advocating separate lunch counters for Gays????


I think you know they've advocated giving business owners the right to refuse service to gay customers, if said business owner's religious sensibilities are allegedly offended.

More like giving business the right to refuse service to anyone, which I believe they already have. This is more about busting the balls of private business and stifling entrepreneurialism than gay rights. They'e just using the gay rights rationale merely as a tool. :roll:


Always this conspiracy theory on the right, that evil liberals are out to destroy business by means of endorsing fairness. And I agree, business people already have the right to refuse service to anyone - so why is the right pushing discriminatory laws, such as in Arizona, for something that already exists?
And regarding your previous question about where is it legal for business to pay women less than a man - well, it's not legal, yet many businesses still do it. That's why the government is taking action, in order to redress a wrong.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer