Is Kansas a Laughingstock or Do You Not Care?

[farmteam]

Shopping in general is a choice. Do you have a constitutional right to be able to go into private businesses?

 

And I'm not discounting the distinction here. I just think it's a distinction without a difference when you're talking about the logic behind it. If you're infringing on a constitutional right, you're infringing on a constitutional right.

 

Opening a business is a choice. And it's subject to not discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Aside from religion, none of those are choices.

[Jenksismyhero]

Opening a business is a choice. And it's subject to not discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Aside from religion, none of those are choices.

 

This is partly true. It depends on the state and the type of business you're talking about.

[StrangeSox]

Shopping in general is a choice. Do you have a constitutional right to be able to go into private businesses?

 

If it's a public business here, then you have a legal right.

 

Participating in the economy and society isn't really a "choice."

 

And I'm not discounting the distinction here. I just think it's a distinction without a difference when you're talking about the logic behind it. If you're infringing on a constitutional right, you're infringing on a constitutional right.

 

Public accommodations are a CRA right, not a constitutional right. Either way, a person can't stop being gay or stop being black, but you can leave your gun in your car or at home very easily.

[Balta1701]

Harm has nothing to do with it. It's your belief, end of story. And really, your fear of being harmed by a gun entering your business is about as ludicrous as a gay guy raping someone in a shower full of straight men.

 

This is why it's better to let everyone be a racist/homophobic/gun-hating prick. Everyone will be hated equally and the world can move on.

I know, could you imagine? I'm teaching a class, I have to fail a person, they get angry, and that person winds up carrying gay with them? Oh my god how scary would that be? To have someone you have to deal with being irresponsible with their gay? I mean, why couldn't they have just left their gay at home?

 

Or, god forbid, black. Could you imagine how scary it would be to have someone being irresponsibly with their black?

[Texsox]

Since the objectionable behavior (in Kansas) of being "gay" is sexuality and having sex probably will not happen in the store a better analogy would be if Balta would block a gun owner from the store if they were not carrying a gun. The potentially objectionable behavior (sex, shooting) happens back home. Balta would be a hypocrit imho if he refused service to one and not the other. That doesn't seem to be the case.

[Jenksismyhero]

I know, could you imagine? I'm teaching a class, I have to fail a person, they get angry, and that person winds up carrying gay with them? Oh my god how scary would that be? To have someone you have to deal with being irresponsible with their gay? I mean, why couldn't they have just left their gay at home?

 

Or, god forbid, black. Could you imagine how scary it would be to have someone being irresponsibly with their black?

 

Lol, thanks for proving my point about your irrational fear.

[Texsox]

Lol, thanks for proving my point about your irrational fear.

 

Then I am missing your point.

 

People with guns shoot and kill people. Being concerned about someone with a gun seems more rational than being concerned about who someone may be having sex with.

 

Which would you fear more, having a pissed off gay guy in front of you or a pissed off guy with a gun?

[Jenksismyhero]

Then I am missing your point.

 

People with guns shoot and kill people. Being concerned about someone with a gun seems more rational than being concerned about who someone may be having sex with.

 

Which would you fear more, having a pissed off gay guy in front of you or a pissed off guy with a gun?

 

Obviously bringing a gun into a situation is inherently more dangerous than just some random gay guy walking into a store. But there's no expectation in either situation that some objectionable behavior will occur. It's irrational to assume so, which is why I think Balta banning someone with a gun from his store because he's afraid to get shot is just as dumb as a Bible thumper in Kansas worried that he'll be tainted or something from a gay guy entering his store. I could buy the argument that mixing alcohol and bars (known to produce fights and killings already) would be a good and legitimate reason to ban guns. But a typical store? No.

 

However, as i've said before, I think Balta should absolutely have the right to bar anyone from his store. And business of Kansas owners should be able to do the same. The reason behind it - fear, religious objection, etc. - in 2014, really shouldn't matter. I think the Kansas law is dumb, but I also think a law going the other way - that business owners HAVE to serve people - is equally dumb.

[StrangeSox]

Are you incapable of distinguishing between a physical object and an innate trait of someone?

 

edit: jenks' arguments remind me of libertarian economist Bryan Caplan's argument that women really were more free in the Gilded Age than they are now. both arguments say much more about how limited this conception of freedom is than anything else.

 

edit2: why does the reason not matter "in 2014"? If it's because racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. are so rare (lol) that we wouldn't have to worry about it, then doesn't that mean public accommodations law isn't really hurting anyone?

Edited February 27, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Are you incapable of distinguishing between a physical object and an innate trait of someone?

 

The logic behind finding the "behavior" objectionable (and wanting to ban that behavior from entering your store) is the exact same, and that's what i'm getting at. To infringe on a right in the law you have to have a legitimate reason for doing so. Fear of being shot with a gun simply by having someone carrying a gun has been repeatedly rejected (except in certain situations). It's not a complicated argument.

[Jenksismyhero]

Are you incapable of distinguishing between a physical object and an innate trait of someone?

 

edit: jenks' arguments remind me of libertarian economist Bryan Caplan's argument that women really were more free in the Gilded Age than they are now. both arguments say much more about how limited this conception of freedom is than anything else.

 

edit2: why does the reason not matter "in 2014"? If it's because racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. are so rare (lol) that we wouldn't have to worry about it, then doesn't that mean public accommodations law isn't really hurting anyone?

 

As to your edit 2, yes, i think progress society has made makes some of these laws unnecessary, or at least less necessary than before. Affirmative action laws are a good example. SCOTUS specifically said we hope in 25 years we won't need this anymore. Are you saying we should never change laws over time and we should accept them always and forever?

Edited February 27, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

In your hypothetical, Balta wants to ban an inanimate object from the premises. Human beings are not inanimate objects; a gun owner can leave their gun in the car/at home, a black person can't leave their black at home and their black isn't literally a deadly weapon on top of that.

 

Places can discriminate based on dress code, and nobody really cares. Places can not allow pets, they could not allow people carrying skateboards or bring their bicycle in or any number of different objects. Nobody really gives a s*** because these things are not in any way equivalent to banning someone because of an innate trait. Carrying a certain object with you wherever you go is not like being gay or being black or being Jewish. You can just leave the damn thing at home.

[StrangeSox]

As to your edit 2, yes, i think progress society has made makes some of these laws unnecessary, or at least less necessary than before. Affirmative action laws are a good example. SCOTUS specifically said we hope in 25 years we won't need this anymore. Are you saying we should never change laws over time and we should accept them always and forever?

 

I'm saying that public accommodations laws should never be repealed. The only thing that would accomplish would be enabling bigotry--there's zero good reason to do it.

[Texsox]

I am following your argument but the weak point still is the comparison between a weapon which can be documented as causing harm to someone and a sexual orientation which would not seem to harm anyone or even have the potential to.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

In your hypothetical, Balta wants to ban an inanimate object from the premises. Human beings are not inanimate objects; a gun owner can leave their gun in the car/at home, a black person can't leave their black at home and their black isn't literally a deadly weapon on top of that.

 

Places can discriminate based on dress code, and nobody really cares. Places can not allow pets, they could not allow people carrying skateboards or bring their bicycle in or any number of different objects. Nobody really gives a s*** because these things are not in any way equivalent to banning someone because of an innate trait. Carrying a certain object with you wherever you go is not like being gay or being black or being Jewish. You can just leave the damn thing at home.

 

All well and good and I don't disagree, but you actually have an express, constitutional right to bear arms. And you now have various state and federal laws that allow you to carry those guns in public. So the decision to restrict that right (just like your legal right to enter a store without discrimination for certain classes) has to come with some kind of legitimate reason. Banning gay people because of religious objections is, IMO and yours, not legitimate. Same with guns and a fear of being shot.

 

The distinction you make doesn't really matter. "It's easy to remove the objection" isn't really the question. Perhaps from a realistic stand point it is, but i'm arguing from a legal, constitutional one.

[Soxbadger]

Obviously bringing a gun into a situation is inherently more dangerous than just some random gay guy walking into a store.

 

Nothing more needs to be said.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Nothing more needs to be said.

 

But this argument has been rejected by the courts in the concealed carry arguments. I mean, this is obviously where the "no guns" sign cases are going to go and be decided, but we're not there yet as far as I know.

 

Again, i'm not equating the two. I'm equating the logic behind it. Balta still fears guns and doesn't want them in his place. A dude from Kansas fears or finds objectionable gay people and doesn't want them in his place. You can draw all the real-world distinctions you like, but under the law the hurdle of legitimacy is the same. And as much as you'd like to consider a gun as an object no different from a shirt or shoes, it isn't the same.

[StrangeSox]

You're still treating objects as equivalent to people.

[Jenksismyhero]

You're still treating objects as equivalent to people.

 

No, i'm treating rights equally. Something you obviously disagree with.

[Soxbadger]

But this argument has been rejected by the courts in the concealed carry arguments. I mean, this is obviously where the "no guns" sign cases are going to go and be decided, but we're not there yet as far as I know.

 

Again, i'm not equating the two. I'm equating the logic behind it. Balta still fears guns and doesn't want them in his place. A dude from Kansas fears or finds objectionable gay people and doesn't want them in his place. You can draw all the real-world distinctions you like, but under the law the hurdle of legitimacy is the same. And as much as you'd like to consider a gun as an object no different from a shirt or shoes, it isn't the same.

 

The problem is that there is no logic behind not wanting to serve a gay person. There is absolutely logic behind not wanting people with guns in your store. Guns present a risk. Thats why when you go to court, there is a metal detector and no one can bring in a gun. Thats why when you fly on a plane, etc.

 

Are there gay detectors? Do we fear that gay people on a plane is dangerous? Gay people in court?

 

So lets stop with this fallacy that somehow its comparable.

 

[Soxbadger]

No, i'm treating rights equally. Something you obviously disagree with.

 

 

????

 

Guns are an object, sexual preference is not. If a gay person wants to go to store X, they cant simply "leave their gay at home".

 

Sorry this is stupid and we both know it.

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem is that there is no logic behind not wanting to serve a gay person. There is absolutely logic behind not wanting people with guns in your store. Guns present a risk. Thats why when you go to court, there is a metal detector and no one can bring in a gun. Thats why when you fly on a plane, etc.

 

Are there gay detectors? Do we fear that gay people on a plane is dangerous? Gay people in court?

 

So lets stop with this fallacy that somehow its comparable.

 

Religious objection is the logic, whether you agree or disagree with it.

 

And it's absolutely comparable under the law. How do you, of all people, not see that?

Edited February 27, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

????

 

Guns are an object, sexual preference is not. If a gay person wants to go to store X, they cant simply "leave their gay at home".

 

Sorry this is stupid and we both know it.

 

Go reread my posts because you've clearly glossed over me saying about 10 times that factually they are not comparable and there is a clear distinction between the two, but under the law the analysis and determination of whether rights have been infringed are the same.

[illinilaw08]

Religious objections is the logic, whether you agree or disagree with it.

 

And it's absolutely comparable under the law. How do you, of all people, not see that?

 

Come on now Jenks. If there's a crazy religion that thinks interracial marriage is a sin, should they be allowed to refuse service to that interracial couple? No because of the 14th (and because it's morally wrong). Discrimination is absolutely and totally wrong. I can't believe you are supporting this point.

 

The issue about the Second is a different one and is subject to its own problems. I think everyone agrees that the Second is subject to certain reasonable restrictions. What those reasonable restrictions are is its own argument...

[StrangeSox]

There's religious exceptions to these sorts of laws. No churches are being required to perform same-sex marriage against their will.