Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:55 am

Problem is, you're handing the other end of the leash to other people, and seem to have no issues with that.
Did I say I have no issues with that? No. It is not the ideal situation by any means. However, until Christ's second coming we are going to have to settle for earthly governments. Some forms are better than others and our goal is to build the best we can in this life.

Also, a specific religion should not also be the governing force either. A theocracy is simply another man made government system, and it is not the goal of the Church to become a state (to paraphrase Dostoevsky).
What I don't get is...if I drove up to an auto shop that said "No Christians, discounts to liberal atheists!" I'd simply drive across the street to another auto shop and get on with my life. I would not cry "discrimination", I would not immediately report a heinous crime to the media so that everyone and their grandpa might join me in hating them, and I would not launch a crusade against them.
I would cry discrimination. You gotta call it for what it is. No amount of "I personally wouldn't be upset" type of sentiment will change the fact that this is objectively wrong. How you may react to it personally does not change the fact that it is discrimination. It means only that you would handle being faced with it differently than someone else, that's all.

What I really find confusing is that you would cry discrimination regarding having to make a wedding cake and will insist on fighting back, but if you were in a situation like this with a far more clear cut example of discrimination, you claim that it somehow isn't? I don't understand how this is consistent.
Because, hey, they have a right to be a jerk. This is America, not the middle east.
True, however they do not have a right to deny equality under the law and use "religious beliefs" as a pretense for blatant discrimination. This is America, not the middle east.
As long as you aren't hurting someone (and it is not my belief that bruised feelings count),
Equating blatant and obvious discrimination to just mere "bruised feelings" really downplays what is actually happening. Basically it's like denying someone service based on the color of their skin and saying it is no big deal, they can just go somewhere else. Believe me when I say that I did not initially want to make a racial analogy here but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any other way to get the point across. If businesses started denying people based on race once again then either you would expect the government to intervene and enforce civil rights laws or brush them aside as simply having "bruised feelings" as well. I am not gonna lie, I sincerely hope you would choose the former, otherwise, why bother talking about civil rights at all then? There's no point of discussing this further if we can't even agree on this much.
You realize, don't you, that a government not kept in check will do the exact same thing, because the humans who run any government have the same human nature as the governed.
Yes of course, and the people of course need to keep the government in check too, but the government must have the power it needs to keep society going and the kind of limited and/or minimalist approach of American Libertarianism would effectively neuter it. If the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Constitution to create a strong central government they would have framed the Constitution differently or just stuck with the Articles of Confederation. They did not do this because they saw that what they had previously simply did not work. A central government with too little power is hardly a government worth having at all.
This is the reason for preferring limited government... it's to keep it in check precisely because of the human nature being used to justify statism.
That is one possible option but not the only one and in my opinion not the best. I think a far better option would be to simply allow more room for other political parties to legitimately join the fray, break the monopoly of power concentrated in the current two party system, and give us more real choices to begin with. If we had real options to vote for and more parties we can vote in to begin with, it will force the two major parties to come to the negotiating table cause now they aren't the only two players anymore. It would be sort of like the multi-party system in England, where you have a few major parties but they alone can't get everything they want done without the support of some of the others, nor can they block another major party without said support.

So my proposal is reform what we have currently to allow real choices for the people. Even if it turns out we have to come up with additional changes, no real change is possible with the way our electoral system is currently set up anyway. No reason to throw out a strong central government, but it should be one where we are allowed to have real choices of who to vote in. These are people we can expect to force the two incumbent parties to play ball with and possibly accomplish something more beneficial than what we currently have now. All branches of the government will benefit from having more than two equally bad choices. The wider variety of people you get, the less concentrated the power between parties is and the more people will be forced to rely on negotiation to get things done.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:05 am

No amount of "I personally wouldn't be upset" type of sentiment will change the fact that this is objectively wrong.
Hold on. You can't say it's objectively wrong. By its very nature, it's subjective in that different people have different views on it. The entire problem with all of this is people claiming their own values as being objectively right and using government to enforce them.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:44 am


Hold on. You can't say it's objectively wrong. By its very nature, it's subjective in that different people have different views on it. The entire problem with all of this is people claiming their own values as being objectively right and using government to enforce them.
Actually, yes I can. The fact that people have different views on the matter does not in itself make it subjective. You wouldn't consider the question of God's existence subjective would you? People have different views on who He is or whether He exists at all, but does that change anything? No, it does not.

To say that there is no objective answer is of course an objective claim in itself. It is to say conclusively that there is no answer of any kind to this specific issue for whatever reason. However, merely disagreeing on an answer or being unable to find one does not in itself constitute lack of an objective answer.

So with that we are left with:

1) Is there an answer to this question? Why or why not?

2) Is this an answer we can find out? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

My answer is yes on both accounts. The first reason there is an answer is the fact that quite frankly, the answer already exists from both a legal and moral perspective. From the legal side we have the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act that have already answered that question regarding whether businesses can conduct this kind of discrimination and the answer is no. From a moral side, we also know that prejudice of this kind is born of unreasoning hate, contempt, and potentially other known sins as well. This specific situation is a blatant misuse of the faith too, which in itself is objectively wrong. So based on that we have a moral answer for whether or not a business owner can conduct this kind of discrimination, and again, the answer is no.

So given that answers have already been provided, we cannot simply sit here and claim that there are no objective answers. If nothing else we have come too far as a nation to think that there is no answer at the very least. We are still working out a lot of the details and how to implement all of this, but just the mere concepts of rights and discrimination are themselves objective. We may not always agree on all these details but that does not mean the answers do not exist, nor should we stop working to pursue them under the mistaken notion that it is all subjective. If nothing else, we should at least arrive at the point where we can determine if we will be able to find an answer for a given issue in this life.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:46 am

Actually, yes I can. The fact that people have different views on the matter does not in itself make it subjective. You wouldn't consider the question of God's existence subjective would you? People have different views on who He is or whether He exists at all, but does that change anything? No, it does not.
Personally, no I don't consider God's existence subjective, but then that's irrelevant. Can the Government make laws based on my (or anyone's) belief in God being objectively true?

And be careful about citing law as a measure of right and wrong. There are plenty of evil things that are (and have been in the past) perfectly legal, and plenty of harmless things that are illegal.

What we're ultimately talking about is control. Say what you want about fairness and equality and all that foo foo stuff but at the end of the day this mechanic, jerk that he may be, isn't seeking to impose control over anyone. You want him to be controlled by the government. That isn't liberty.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:02 am

Personally, no I don't consider God's existence subjective, but then that's irrelevant. Can the Government make laws based on my belief in God being objectively true?
Depends on the form of Government of course ;). In the case of the US Government I guess it depends on what laws you are proposing. If it is a law saying that we must believe in God being true, well of course not. That goes against our principles, but let's explore why that principle exists...

It is not inherently due to a subjectivistic stance, even though sadly that seems to be what it has turned into. Relativism as it is understood in Postmodern thought today simply did not exist back then and the Founders, though not all believers, certainly did not think in those terms. Our nation may not have been founded on Christianity, but it wasn't founded on subjectivism either. The whole reason behind Freedom of Religion is to acknowledge the right to have people believe as they wish and not to have the government establish an official state religion. It was recognized as a timeless self-evident truth, an objective thing in of itself. It was one big reason many people came over here from England in the first place. It would not have made any sense to simply repeat what they found in England.

So unless this principle is in fact wrong, no, the US Government may not create such a law. On the other hand it doesn't really matter regarding the OP or my previous post because that answer itself is based on an objective principle. As such it does not negate what I said earlier and does not mean that anything the Government decides is inherently subjective only.

So getting back to my previous post, is my assertion on this issue in my previous post right or wrong?
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby Sstavix » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:10 pm

It seems that with all the emphasis on unlimited absolute rights, especially with the emphasis on property, my guess (and I need to look more into this to confirm) is that American Libertarianism leans more towards a sort of John Locke interpretation.
I feel the need to point out that John Locke was Scottish.

Therefore, that automatically makes him right. :P

I don't think anyone is arguing for absolute freedom here. In case you didn't know (which you might, I don't know) I actually tend to lean towards anarchism. The idea of having a society with no government, no set-in-stone laws, no boundaries or borders where everyone is free to do what they want as long as they respect the indivduality of others is very appealing to me. However, I'm also a realist - a society like this can't possibly exist with humanity the way it is right now. There needs to be some form of central authority to indicate what constitutes "right" and "wrong."

Whether it does or not, the biggest problem I have with this idea of "unlimited" liberty is that it assumes way too much about human nature. It assumes that while not perfect, man's natural inclination is towards altruism, compassion, self-motivation, and the preservation of society and all those around themselves. It is the same issue that I find with anarchism, nihilism, and Marxism. Given a completely stateless society or one with a very small government, everyone will simply come together and just make it work despite some bad apples.

Well, a number of Enlightenment thinkers thought otherwise and I agree with them. Humans are more inclined towards self-preservation and advancement over anything else. I think human nature has the capacity for the above things, but its inclination towards sin is what will take over for society at large if there is no governing force to keep it in check.
In terms of your take on the Enlightenment, I'd actually argue the opposite - the idea that man is sinful, self-serving, greedy and wicked predated the Enlightenment period by several centuries (I could point at the Bible for evidence of this) and it's only after the Enlightenment period where the concept of mankind being excellent to each other without some sort of overriding moral authority emerged. But yes, I think that we can both agree that, without some form of central authority, society would dissolve into chaos pretty quickly.
My answer is yes on both accounts. The first reason there is an answer is the fact that quite frankly, the answer already exists from both a legal and moral perspective. From the legal side we have the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act that have already answered that question regarding whether businesses can conduct this kind of discrimination and the answer is no.
Hold on... I think you're arguing from a false assumption that this matter is already resolved and factually accurate. I would argue that it is not, and as a result, your subsequent arguments are stemming from a fallacy.

The 14th Amendment is a great amendment that prevents discrimination... from the government. It puts a limitation on the government that indicates that the State (or States, if you prefer) cannot issue or legislate any laws that exclude or discriminate against certain genders, races or religions (there could be some debate about if this includes sexual identity, but the prevailing trend in the nation is that it does).

Back to the issue that started this, the auto body shop is NOT a legislative body. It has no power to enact or enforce laws. In fact, I'm willing to bet that it isn't even an arm or extension of the government.

You seem to be insinuating that just because a business pays taxes and is subject to laws and regulations that it is a body of government, and as a result, subject to the same limitations, restrictions and laws as the government. I would - and have - argue vehemently that this is NOT the case. The business is owned by a private individual and, as a result, is a private establishment. Your argument, taken to its logical extreme, would insinuate that all businesses are an extension of the government and, as a result, there is no such thing as a private business. Everything belongs to the government.

Frankly, I find that idea absolutely abhorrent, and the exact kind of mindset that the Founding Fathers fought against to make this nation. So I passionately disagree with your assumption that the 14th Amendment, somehow, applies to private businesses. Because if everything belongs to the government, then it falls to the government to determine what constitutes "right" and "wrong," rather than the individual.

And judging by all the news we've had recently about abortion, spying on U.S. citizens, torturing "enemy combatants," corporate bailouts, and favoritism for wealthy political donors, I think we can all agree that the U.S. government should not be considered a moral authority on anything.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:14 pm

What Sstavix said. All day long.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:20 pm


In case you didn't know (which you might, I don't know) I actually tend to lean towards anarchism.
Ah, I did not know that. :).

In terms of your take on the Enlightenment, I'd actually argue the opposite - the idea that man is sinful, self-serving, greedy and wicked predated the Enlightenment period by several centuries (I could point at the Bible for evidence of this) and it's only after the Enlightenment period where the concept of mankind being excellent to each other without some sort of overriding moral authority emerged. But yes, I think that we can both agree that, without some form of central authority, society would dissolve into chaos pretty quickly.
Fair enough, I guess I need to do more research then.

Hold on... I think you're arguing from a false assumption that this matter is already resolved and factually accurate. I would argue that it is not, and as a result, your subsequent arguments are stemming from a fallacy.

The 14th Amendment is a great amendment that prevents discrimination... from the government. It puts a limitation on the government that indicates that the State (or States, if you prefer) cannot issue or legislate any laws that exclude or discriminate against certain genders, races or religions (there could be some debate about if this includes sexual identity, but the prevailing trend in the nation is that it does).

Back to the issue that started this, the auto body shop is NOT a legislative body. It has no power to enact or enforce laws. In fact, I'm willing to bet that it isn't even an arm or extension of the government.
Ok, so now let's take this in the context of my entire argument, where I said the 14th Amendment, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act apply.

While I see your point about the 14th amendment, this does not refute my argument. First off, the spirit of the 14th amendment's limitation on government discrimination is the same one which has gone into other laws that regulate discrimination in other areas of society as well, including business. The reason I also mentioned the Commerce Clause and the Civil Rights Act was to clearly show that businesses can and already have been regulated in regards to discrimination and that it is fully Constitutional for the government to do so. Thus both the government and private sectors are limited in regards to discriminatory behavior.

We see this in the case of business hiring practices. If I was to follow your line of reasoning they should be allowed to discriminate based on whatever criteria they choose. However, this is explicitly forbidden and for good reason. If a business chooses to break the law on this then the question is whether or not the law is just? In the case of hiring practices and the Civil Rights Act, the law is just and any business who decides to break it is flat out wrong.
You seem to be insinuating that just because a business pays taxes and is subject to laws and regulations that it is a body of government, and as a result, subject to the same limitations, restrictions and laws as the government. I would - and have - argue vehemently that this is NOT the case. The business is owned by a private individual and, as a result, is a private establishment. Your argument, taken to its logical extreme, would insinuate that all businesses are an extension of the government and, as a result, there is no such thing as a private business. Everything belongs to the government.

Frankly, I find that idea absolutely abhorrent, and the exact kind of mindset that the Founding Fathers fought against to make this nation.
1) This isn't even close to what I was actually saying. Saying that businesses need to follow the rules the government lays out for them does not imply that they are government owned. That said, being a privately owned business does not exempt the business from said rules though since businesses are places of commerce and thus can be regulated as per the Constitutional authority given to Congress. Think of it like a child who owns a toy. It is their toy to play with, but if they use said toy as a weapon to attack someone else with, the parents can and should intervene. If their disciplinary action includes taking the toy away from the child, should the child say that his rights to private property are being violated, demand his toy back, and say the parents had no right to discipline the child the way they did? Or would you say that the child is being faced with a just punishment as a consequence of their actions?

Being a privately owned business does not make that business exempt from playing by the same rules as everyone else.

2) As such, the logical extreme you present does not flow from my argument because I am not making the argument that you claim I am. You seem to be making me out to be some kind of collectivist or something simply because I am not as much of an individualist as you seem to be. I'm starting to find this really annoying since it seems to be a trend here.
So I passionately disagree with your assumption that the 14th Amendment, somehow, applies to private businesses. Because if everything belongs to the government, then it falls to the government to determine what constitutes "right" and "wrong," rather than the individual.
That's fine and all, but again this statement misses some very key parts of my argument in the first place, as mentioned earlier.

Also, for the record, I trust "the individual" as much as I trust the government oftentimes (that is, not very much). Sometimes the individual should be the one left to make the choice for themselves, sometimes the government should be the final say. Which one is which depends on the situation at hand. For this situation and similar ones I would say the government has the final say since regulating commerce is their job under the Constitution and thus it falls under their domain. Other situations should be left up to the individual.

It seems that you feel that the default answer should be that the individual is the final arbiter of what constitutes right and wrong, and you seem to erroneously think that I feel that government by default is the final arbiter of right and wrong. I have somewhat of a tendency to lean towards the government on issues like this I admit, but ultimately neither is the final arbiter of right and wrong. Of course, on this side of the grave we must settle for one or the other for the time being. There is no "default" answer though and despite whatever way we tend to lean towards, each must be examined on a case by case basis.



Also, let's be clear about something, when you say rights of an "individual", you are specifically talking about a business owner only when it comes to whether or not a business has the right to discriminate. This is also true when you are talking about which "individual" is allowed to decide what is right or wrong. However, what of the individuals whose rights may be affected by said business owner (as I laid out in detail in my response to Chozon1)? Are only business owners allowed to determine what constitutes right and wrong practice? Do other individuals not have a say in this?

How is it that when other individuals who are not the business owner say that this is morally wrong and take action based on their views that their conclusions are relegated to "bruised feelings" and "trying to force their views on others" but the business owners are not? Even if we leave it up to the individual your arguments do not fly with me because this seems like picking and choosing which individuals get the say. If we are going to leave it up to the People to decide and hash out amongst themselves, then all peoples involved or who wish to get involved must be given weight. While they don't always have to be given equal weight, there is a minimum requirement that they need to be given a genuine opportunity to be heard, and honestly considered in most cases. At the very least they don't deserve to be dismissed right out and marginalized right off the bat. Granted, there are exceptions to this, but that is not the case with this issue.

To do otherwise is not to leave things up to the People to decide, but to simply replace the government's authority with another man made authority (in this case business owners) and a far more arbitrary one at that. The end result will be that only business owners will be counted as "individuals" for the purposes of deciding these matters and it will only serve to marginalize all other individuals. There's no freedom or individual liberty in that.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

Chachi
Noob
Noob
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 11:24 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby Chachi » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:53 pm

despite everything else I wanted to share the owners Facebook page. I think if you read through the posts over the past few days we can have a chance to hear it straight from the horses mouth. https://www.facebook.com/Dieseltec?fref=ts

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby ChickenSoup » Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:03 pm

"If silencing those who oppose the gay agenda is the standard in America for freedom, liberty, and law, the question for the gay community is how is this approach different from First Century Rome, communism or ISIS?"
Um... Sure
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby Sstavix » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:46 pm

First off, the spirit of the 14th amendment's limitation on government discrimination is the same one which has gone into other laws that regulate discrimination in other areas of society as well, including business.
The "spirit" of the legislation is inconsequential - it's the literal wording that makes all the difference. I spend a lot of my job around lawyers, and that's one thing that is frequently drummed up. ;) So if you have any specific examples of where private businesses have been forced to change their practices - or even better, if the owners of said businesses have spent time in jail and their property seized because of the Federal (not state) law, feel free to share it.
The reason I also mentioned the Commerce Clause and the Civil Rights Act was to clearly show that businesses can and already have been regulated in regards to discrimination and that it is fully Constitutional for the government to do so. Thus both the government and private sectors are limited in regards to discriminatory behavior.
There have been plenty of cases where both Federal and state laws have been overturned because of the Commerce Clause and the Civil Rights Act, so I'm not arguing about the restrictions on government. But can you show me any Supreme Court cases where the court cracked down on a private business in terms of discrimination?
We see this in the case of business hiring practices. If I was to follow your line of reasoning they should be allowed to discriminate based on whatever criteria they choose. However, this is explicitly forbidden and for good reason. If a business chooses to break the law on this then the question is whether or not the law is just? In the case of hiring practices and the Civil Rights Act, the law is just and any business who decides to break it is flat out wrong.
Good point. Therefore, when I apply to be a Hooter's waitress, they should have to hire me anyway, even though I'm a 41 year old, 260 lb man with more hair on my back than on my head. I think the crop top and Daisy Dukes do me justice, don't you?

Truth be told, some businesses do discriminate based on their hiring practices, because hiring certain people for certain jobs just don't work. Some businesses have to do this just in order to do business. For example, is it fair for a fire department to refuse to hire a paralyzed man simply because he can't climb a ladder or carry a 41-year-old, 260 lb. man with more hair on his back than on his head out of a burning building? I think the fire department would be justified in this decision.
You seem to be insinuating that just because a business pays taxes and is subject to laws and regulations that it is a body of government, and as a result, subject to the same limitations, restrictions and laws as the government. I would - and have - argue vehemently that this is NOT the case. The business is owned by a private individual and, as a result, is a private establishment. Your argument, taken to its logical extreme, would insinuate that all businesses are an extension of the government and, as a result, there is no such thing as a private business. Everything belongs to the government.

Frankly, I find that idea absolutely abhorrent, and the exact kind of mindset that the Founding Fathers fought against to make this nation.
1) This isn't even close to what I was actually saying. Saying that businesses need to follow the rules the government lays out for them does not imply that they are government owned.
That isn't what I said at all. I'm not saying that following the rules that government lays out makes them part of the government. After all, the government lays out rules for individuals, too - such as the speed limit. I'm saying that forcing them to follow the same rules as the government because they are deemed to be part of the government is wrong.
That said, being a privately owned business does not exempt the business from said rules though since businesses are places of commerce and thus can be regulated as per the Constitutional authority given to Congress.
This counteracts what you just said. By this statement, you claim that businesses are controlled by the government, rather than private business owners. The only way the government could do this is if they owned the business.

So which is it? Are individuals allowed to own and operate their own businesses? Or is the government the final authority in determining what businesses can be opened and how they conduct their day-to-day activities?
Being a privately owned business does not make that business exempt from playing by the same rules as everyone else.
You would be correct in this assessment... only keep in mind that the government is supposed to be operating from a different rulebook. ;)
2) As such, the logical extreme you present does not flow from my argument because I am not making the argument that you claim I am. You seem to be making me out to be some kind of collectivist or something simply because I am not as much of an individualist as you seem to be. I'm starting to find this really annoying since it seems to be a trend here.
Yet you seem to continue to argue from a collectivist position. I suppose the frustration here is that you don't seem to see it, and I'm not entirely sure why.

So I'll go ahead and repeat my question from earlier in this post. Who owns a business? Can a private individual create and own and run a business on his or her own? Or do all businesses belong to the government, and the business owners only are allowed to manage things as long as the government says so?
It seems that you feel that the default answer should be that the individual is the final arbiter of what constitutes right and wrong, and you seem to erroneously think that I feel that government by default is the final arbiter of right and wrong.
I agree that the individual isn't always the best choice for determining "right" and "wrong," either. See my earlier agreement that mankind is inherently wicked and sinful. ;) However, I think there needs to be made a distinction between what should be considered "morally right" and "legally right." The two are not always identical.

The government is the decision maker of what should be legally right and wrong. However, I'm of the mindset that the powers of the government should be severely limited, and can only take action in certain extreme cases. The most control over the individual should be on the local level, and on the Federal level, it should be so limited that the individual shouldn't even really notice it. This is because the individual, likewise, has more control over their local government than they do the Federal body.

As for the determination of "morally right," that's where religion and ethics come in. ;) Thing is, just because something is morally right or wrong does not mean that the punishment is inflicted here. As Christians, I think we can both agree that God is the final judge on a person's guilt or innocence based on the moral decisions they made in life.
However, what of the individuals whose rights may be affected by said business owner (as I laid out in detail in my response to Chozon1)? Are only business owners allowed to determine what constitutes right and wrong practice? Do other individuals not have a say in this?
Of course they have a say. They can protest the business. They can choose to take their business elsewhere. They can post snarky messages on Yelp about their experiences. I'm not saying that they can't do this. If anything, I'd say that they have a First Amendment right to do this.

How is it that when other individuals who are not the business owner say that this is morally wrong and take action based on their views that their conclusions are relegated to "bruised feelings" and "trying to force their views on others" but the business owners are not?
I'm not saying this at all. In fact, if you made the argument that the business owner in this case is trying to "force his views on others," I would agree. He is running his business to exclude homosexuals. His views are reflected in his business practices, so those who patronize his business have to acknowledge this.

To do otherwise is not to leave things up to the People to decide, but to simply replace the government's authority with another man made authority (in this case business owners) and a far more arbitrary one at that. The end result will be that only business owners will be counted as "individuals" for the purposes of deciding these matters and it will only serve to marginalize all other individuals. There's no freedom or individual liberty in that.
To some extend I would agree with this. Thomas Jefferson said...
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
So large corporations - especially monopolies - are just as much a threat to individual liberties as intrusive, totalitarian government approaches. (Incidentally, this is one aspect where I depart from the Libertarian mindset, since the Libertarians acknowledge that monopolies are an inevitable "necessary evil" of limited government.)

However, with a single auto body place in Michigan, I don't think we're reaching monopolistic levels yet, so the argument is moot. ;)

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:00 pm
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby Chozon1 » Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:39 am

Did I say I have no issues with that? No. It is not the ideal situation by any means. However, until Christ's second coming we are going to have to settle for earthly governments. Some forms are better than others and our goal is to build the best we can in this life.

Also, a specific religion should not also be the governing force either. A theocracy is simply another man made government system, and it is not the goal of the Church to become a state (to paraphrase Dostoevsky).
I don't think anyone mentioned theocracies, and I don't tend to listen to existentialists. Too fatalistic and self-focused, for me.

But since you brought it up, can you point out where God said that our "religion" shouldn't enter our government? Or is it only us humans who say that?

What I was pointing out there, is that you're championing government control over morality and ethics, and seemingly pushing aside the nasty side effect of giving that control to men and women who are just as corrupt and fallen as the rest of us with the response "Well, we just have to do the best we can".

It's my opinion that the "best" here would be to not to give that control over my life into the hands of untrustworthy individuals.
I would cry discrimination. You gotta call it for what it is. No amount of "I personally wouldn't be upset" type of sentiment will change the fact that this is objectively wrong. How you may react to it personally does not change the fact that it is discrimination. It means only that you would handle being faced with it differently than someone else, that's all.

What I really find confusing is that you would cry discrimination regarding having to make a wedding cake and will insist on fighting back, but if you were in a situation like this with a far more clear cut example of discrimination, you claim that it somehow isn't? I don't understand how this is consistent.
Objectively wrong...means that it's wrong no matter what, where, when or why. I am not certain I could say that of discrimination. Sstavix made a good example in one of his posts, but for myself I think it's vastly overreaching to equate discrimination with theft, murder or kidnapping. Evils in which people are genuinely harmed. And that's the outcry I'm getting here. You're saying it's so morally wrong, that it needs to be punished strongly and without mercy. Even the barest hint of it.

For that matter, I never cried discrimination over the silly wedding cake. And I never claimed this wasn't discrimination. I said it wasn't that big of a deal, and the dude could be a jerk if he wanted. And I'll stand by that and take the flack for it. *shrugs*

Because here's the thing; say this guy is forced to take down his sign. He's forced to let gay people visit his shop. Yay freedom you win again. Now, you're driving by and happen to need new brakes. Do you really want to give this guy money? Because his heart surely isn't changed. He's just been forced to shut his mouth. The end result is simply a lot of effort for nothing more than to punish the guy for being a jerk. That's all it is. There is no desire for equality here, no wish for a change of heart; just punishment to make the guy stop.
True, however they do not have a right to deny equality under the law and use "religious beliefs" as a pretense for blatant discrimination. This is America, not the middle east.
Sure they do. They can also use worldview differences, schools of thought, ETC. "If I don't like you, I don't have to serve you". It works both ways, for and against everyone. Seems fair. This guy is just being honest about why he doesn't want certain people in his shop, rather than gently lying to them. Dude's a jerk, but I can respect that aspect, at least.
Equating blatant and obvious discrimination to just mere "bruised feelings" really downplays what is actually happening. Basically it's like denying someone service based on the color of their skin and saying it is no big deal, they can just go somewhere else. Believe me when I say that I did not initially want to make a racial analogy here but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any other way to get the point across. If businesses started denying people based on race once again then either you would expect the government to intervene and enforce civil rights laws or brush them aside as simply having "bruised feelings" as well. I am not gonna lie, I sincerely hope you would choose the former, otherwise, why bother talking about civil rights at all then? There's no point of discussing this further if we can't even agree on this much.
The two issues are nothing alike. And if I thought I could do so without becoming annoyed (incensed, really), I'd start that argument. Because I find the equalization of a skin tone or natural birth trait, and a pretty gnarly sin to be hideously insulting.

But I can't. So I won't. :D

And so I leave with this: If the issue were as clear cut as it is in your eyes, then why do you have people who believe otherwise? Accept that it's not as crystal as you think.
Good point. Therefore, when I apply to be a Hooter's waitress, they should have to hire me anyway, even though I'm a 41 year old, 260 lb man with more hair on my back than on my head. I think the crop top and Daisy Dukes do me justice, don't you?
Image
Image

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:14 am

Of course they have a say. They can protest the business. They can choose to take their business elsewhere. They can post snarky messages on Yelp about their experiences. I'm not saying that they can't do this. If anything, I'd say that they have a First Amendment right to do this.
The problem with statist thinking is that this isn't good enough. You're leaving the outcome to the chaotic and unpredictable nature of public opinion which may or may not match the statists's goals.

When all the screaming about Chik-fil-a was at its peak, there were two schools of thought. One was a statist approach; that the Government should impose some sort of sanctions on the company, while others wanted to take the market solution approach and have a massive boycott to punish it.

Chik-fil-a's sales skyrocketed.

This, of course, angered the left because their efforts to shame Chik-fil-a backfired.

So no, voting with your wallet means you control your own decisions, and that's not good for the statist philosophy. They'd rather have the Government, in its wisdom, decide for you.

And... By the Emperor indeed... back hair... Man...
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby Deepfreeze32 » Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 am

Image

This has been my reaction to entire thread. lol.

*goes back to lurking*

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Michigan Auto Shop Owner Denies Service to Openly Gay Customers, Provides Discount to Gun Owners

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:48 pm

Getting back on topic and answering Sstavix' points (I have something to say on the Chik-fil-a thing too), take a look at these...

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/emp/do ... tatute.pdf

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/

The first link is all of the civil rights laws applicable to businesses regarding hiring practices from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They cannot be discriminated against unless (as per Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) it would prove to be an undue hardship on the operation of the business. I included the second link which, while it focuses more on discrimination based on military status (past, present, and future), pages 3-4 outline what constitutes undue harship.

The third link defines what constitutes as Sex Discrimination. This includes gender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender discrimination.

The final link is from the Department of Justice which elaborates on housing and civil enforcement, including Title II of the Civil Rights Act. It makes it clear that some privately owned businesses, such as hotels, restaurants, and any business that would fall under public accommodations, also may not discriminate or refuse service. There is also a link there to various court cases regarding discrimination for each category (race, ethnicity, sex, religion, etc.).

The primary legal recourse in all these cases is either lawsuits or filing complaints. Lawsuits can result from individually pursued lawsuits or from the findings of discrimination investigations by the government due to complaints being received from people. The laws also protect said people who either carry out a lawsuit on their own or file an official complaint from retaliation.

So sure businesses can discriminate with hiring practices if and only if that hardship can be demonstrated. Without that, legally they cannot and people have various options for seeking recourse if unjust discrimination is happening. It is the same thing with denying services to customers. If the privately owned business falls under the public accommodations category, it is subject to all applicable civil rights laws.

So now in light of what the actual laws allow for and what they do not, from a legal standpoint this is the only relevant question:

Does an auto repair shop fall under the category of public accommodations or not? If it does, then not only is this guy legally in the wrong but he should consider himself fortunate that no one has brought a lawsuit against the business yet. If not, then we can resume talking about whether or not it should be legal.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron