Started By
Message
re: Local GOP: Going Full Retard (Arkansas)
Posted on 2/3/15 at 9:11 pm to wmr
Posted on 2/3/15 at 9:11 pm to wmr
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all landlords, business owners, etc. reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? Why is it that it's so important to provide protection for the LGBT community when no one else has a law to protect them? I think it's pretty stupid. But then again I'm not going to pretend to look like I keep up with politics much. If someone wants to discriminate and be a prick, that's their right is it not? It would most certainly backfire if they did as the entire LGBT community would avoid that place of service like the plague, thus costing business and revenue. If someone wants to discriminate, they're going to. A law that says you can't fire them isn't going to stop them from firing them and listing some other BS reason.
2
Posted on 2/3/15 at 9:14 pm to Drewbie
quote:
Why is it that it's so important to provide protection for the LGBT community when no one else has a law to protect them?
The law does protect others, actually. So they do have a legit gripe there. I agree with the rest of your post though.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:08 pm to Drewbie
quote:Part of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all landlords, business owners, etc. reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? Why is it that it's so important to provide protection for the LGBT community when no one else has a law to protect them? I think it's pretty stupid. But then again I'm not going to pretend to look like I keep up with politics much. If someone wants to discriminate and be a prick, that's their right is it not? It would most certainly backfire if they did as the entire LGBT community would avoid that place of service like the plague, thus costing business and revenue. If someone wants to discriminate, they're going to. A law that says you can't fire them isn't going to stop them from firing them and listing some other BS reason.
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
"Any place of public accommodation" is later defined rather broadly to include most kinds of businesses.
So no, landlords and business owners explicitly do not have the right to discriminate or refuse service to people based on those criteria. Most types of discrimination are covered either by the law itself or by subsequent court hearings (discrimination based on gender identity was barred fairly recently, in 2012).
But there is no explicit protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is really goddamn stupid.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 10:11 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:There's no explicit protection against discrimination based on political party affiliation either. It amounts to the same thing. A personal preference that others may or may not agree with. Is it a good gesture to have some protection for them? Sure. Is it absolutely necessary? No.
But there is no explicit protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is really goddamn stupid.
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 10:13 pm
Posted on 2/4/15 at 3:55 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Just wanted to bring up a point here. Sexual orientation is far different from what is listed. The biggest difference to me is that if most of the above listed people walk into a business, it is obvious. You know if a person is black/white, wearing a burqa/yamaka, is Asian/Hispanic by sight alone. I think this makes them more susceptible to discrimination from would-be bigots. I think they actually need more protection laws because they probably face more discrimination.
If a random homosexual guy/girl walks into a business, how are you going to know they are gay without asking them? How can you discriminate against a homosexual when you don't know they're gay? I'm not saying homosexuals should hide it, I'm just saying sexual orientation is not as obvious as skin color/nationality/etc..
Say the ordinance passes, and there is a discrimination claim against a business owner.
For both sides of the suit, how are they going to prove/disprove they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation?
Wouldn't the only way to prove discrimination be if something insulting was said (f word, q word)? I'm obviously not a lawyer, but isn't that kind of stuff already covered by hate crime laws?
Posted on 2/4/15 at 6:20 am to opdogg20
quote:First, no, it's not illegal to use rude language against someone. You can call someone ****, dyke, ****, or whatever you want. Hate crime laws only come into play if it can be proven that you committed a violent crime against someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation (thanks Obama... he extended hate crime laws to apply to sexual orientation in his first term). There is are federal level hate crime laws that only apply to federal crimes, but then most states also have their own hate crime laws that apply at the state level. Arkansas is one of the five states that does not have such laws.
If a random homosexual guy/girl walks into a business, how are you going to know they are gay without asking them? How can you discriminate against a homosexual when you don't know they're gay? I'm not saying homosexuals should hide it, I'm just saying sexual orientation is not as obvious as skin color/nationality/etc..
Say the ordinance passes, and there is a discrimination claim against a business owner.
For both sides of the suit, how are they going to prove/disprove they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation?
Wouldn't the only way to prove discrimination be if something insulting was said (f word, q word)? I'm obviously not a lawyer, but isn't that kind of stuff already covered by hate crime laws?
Like I said, it mostly applies to violent crimes, although some states might apply them more broadly. I'm not sure.
As for your other points about the visibility of civil rights discrimination/enforceability of civil rights laws: are you arguing that because it's difficult to see and to enforce, it shouldn't be prohibited? I agree that it can, in some conceivable scenarios, be hard to prove that discrimination is occurring. There are other conceivable scenarios where it isn't difficult to prove. I don't see why it matters.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 6:25 am to Killean
quote:
Let me do a casual search to see if anybody claims that they were fired for being gay.. hrmm.. LINK LINK LINK LINK / LINK LINK LINK / LINK Blatant idiocy from the conservatives again Seriously, just stop fricking trying to debate with facts (because you never ever ever have any) and just claim that it's because Jesus told you personally. It's less dumb.
You have validated my argument with stunning precision, as these are all claims, none of them are proven.
Just like republican claims of voter fraud. Not to mention none of these were in Fayetteville. I bet you win lots of debates at the local Ace Hardware.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 7:52 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
I don't see why it matters.
It matters because you can't have a law that you can't enforce. If so, what's the point of making it? If you can't see the discrimination or know it's happening, how in the hell are you going to prove it? What kind of evidence are the victims going to present in court? Laws, arrests, convictions can't be made through perception.
With something as serious as this, the ordinance needs to be written with clearly defined language that states what is and isn't permissible. It is a very serious ordinance for many reasons. Not only for the LGBT community, but for business owners as well. Without clear examples of what is/isn't allowed, there is a TON of potential liability. Without the details written, can anyone just go in and claim a business owner is a bigot and discriminated against them? How many countersuits for defamation/slander will arise from that? The burden of proof has to be on the accuser, correct? If it is proven to not be the case, how does that business come back from that?
The reason I brought up the name-calling, was that I think that would be the only way you could prove it.
What are some scenarios where it could be proven in court without reasonable doubt that discrimination occured? (without slurs)
Posted on 2/4/15 at 7:59 am to j1897
quote:
You have validated my argument with stunning precision, as these are all claims, none of them are proven.
Just like republican claims of voter fraud. Not to mention none of these were in Fayetteville. I bet you win lots of debates at the local Ace Hardware.
I bet you're a professional goalpost mover irl.
Individuals who were actually fired currently in litigation vs. claims with no evidence or names. Definitely the same thing.
I understand that it doesn't actually matter what evidence I produce on any level because your mind is already made up. You've already added the "and none of these are in fayetteville" clause.
I can imagine you're amazing fun in the following debate topics:
Climate Change
Evolution
Vaccines
The Earth being more than 6,000 years old.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 8:02 am to opdogg20
quote:
It matters because you can't have a law that you can't enforce. If so, what's the point of making it? If you can't see the discrimination or know it's happening, how in the hell are you going to prove it? What kind of evidence are the victims going to present in court? Laws, arrests, convictions can't be made through perception.
With something as serious as this, the ordinance needs to be written with clearly defined language that states what is and isn't permissible. It is a very serious ordinance for many reasons. Not only for the LGBT community, but for business owners as well. Without clear examples of what is/isn't allowed, there is a TON of potential liability. Without the details written, can anyone just go in and claim a business owner is a bigot and discriminated against them? How many countersuits for defamation/slander will arise from that? The burden of proof has to be on the accuser, correct? If it is proven to not be the case, how does that business come back from that?
The reason I brought up the name-calling, was that I think that would be the only way you could prove it.
What are some scenarios where it could be proven in court without reasonable doubt that discrimination occured? (without slurs)
These same arguments apply to racial discrimination. Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile or useful.
Also, the standard in civil cases is not reasonable doubt (approx 70% sure) but rather preponderance of the evidence (which is like 50.1% sure).
On the other hand you can apply larger trends to companies on a national level.
If company X has 10,000 employees and the national average is 10% black or 10% gay and they only employ 100 black people or 50 gay people.. then you can figure there's some kind of discrimination going on. That's a class action suit level though rather than on a specific level.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 8:09 am to Killean
quote:
or 50 gay people.. then you can figure there's some kind of discrimination going on.
You absolutely can not figure there's discrimination on that. Where on a job application does it ask sexual orientation? It doesn't because if you asked, that would be a different kind of lawsuit.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:04 am to opdogg20
Actually, no. Asking a person their sexual orientation in Arkansas and refusing to hire them isn't actionable.
I realize you righters hate gays a lot. Would it kill you, though, to at least be open and honest about it, rather than attempting to obfuscate the debate about non-discrimination laws?
You can fire someone for being gay in Arkansas.
You can refuse to hire someone for being gay in Arkansas.
You can refuse service to someone for being gay in Arkansas.
You can refuse to rent a home to someone for being gay in Arkansas.
You can do all of the above and there is no recourse, no law, no statue, and no basis on which that person can sue you.
That is very reason Fayetteville attempted to pass this kind of law. You guys say "there's no discrimination so we don't need a law". Yeah. Right. We are going to fight tooth and nail to repeal and prevent these anti-discrimination laws because there is no discrimination.
Christians have no problem lying their asses off, do they?
I realize you righters hate gays a lot. Would it kill you, though, to at least be open and honest about it, rather than attempting to obfuscate the debate about non-discrimination laws?
You can fire someone for being gay in Arkansas.
You can refuse to hire someone for being gay in Arkansas.
You can refuse service to someone for being gay in Arkansas.
You can refuse to rent a home to someone for being gay in Arkansas.
You can do all of the above and there is no recourse, no law, no statue, and no basis on which that person can sue you.
That is very reason Fayetteville attempted to pass this kind of law. You guys say "there's no discrimination so we don't need a law". Yeah. Right. We are going to fight tooth and nail to repeal and prevent these anti-discrimination laws because there is no discrimination.
Christians have no problem lying their asses off, do they?
This post was edited on 2/4/15 at 11:05 am
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:06 am to opdogg20
quote:
Where on a job application does it ask sexual orientation? It doesn't because if you asked, that would be a different kind of lawsuit.
This is absolutely not the case. There is not a basis for a civil rights lawsuit based on sexual orientation in Arkansas, under any circumstances. That's why the law is needed.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:10 am to j1897
quote:
You have validated my argument with stunning precision, as these are all claims, none of them are proven.
Holeeeeee shite you are stupid.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:14 am to Numberwang
Don't lump this into "Christians" and non-Christians. I have a very simple philosophy... what you choose to do in the privacy of your own home is between you and God. What you do in public affects me and my family as well and I should have some rights in that area as well.
You explain to a 4 year old why that girl has her hair cut like a boy and is holding hands and kissing that other girl! In my house that is not acceptable. PERIOD. and I shouldn't be forced to deal with that in public either.
I would like to think I wouldn't discriminate if I was in a hiring/firing position, but I probably would. It's human nature.
Our society is WAY too touchy feely these days.
You explain to a 4 year old why that girl has her hair cut like a boy and is holding hands and kissing that other girl! In my house that is not acceptable. PERIOD. and I shouldn't be forced to deal with that in public either.
I would like to think I wouldn't discriminate if I was in a hiring/firing position, but I probably would. It's human nature.
Our society is WAY too touchy feely these days.
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:15 am to opdogg20
quote:If the owner of the business says to a third party that they refused service to a potential customer because of his or her perceived or real sexual orientation, that would be pretty clear evidence that discrimination based on sexual orientation occurred.
It matters because you can't have a law that you can't enforce. If so, what's the point of making it? If you can't see the discrimination or know it's happening, how in the hell are you going to prove it? What kind of evidence are the victims going to present in court? Laws, arrests, convictions can't be made through perception.
With something as serious as this, the ordinance needs to be written with clearly defined language that states what is and isn't permissible. It is a very serious ordinance for many reasons. Not only for the LGBT community, but for business owners as well. Without clear examples of what is/isn't allowed, there is a TON of potential liability. Without the details written, can anyone just go in and claim a business owner is a bigot and discriminated against them? How many countersuits for defamation/slander will arise from that? The burden of proof has to be on the accuser, correct? If it is proven to not be the case, how does that business come back from that?
The reason I brought up the name-calling, was that I think that would be the only way you could prove it.
What are some scenarios where it could be proven in court without reasonable doubt that discrimination occured? (without slurs)
Hell, the owner of the business could actually admit that he or she is discriminating.
There could also be video and audio recording of someone being refused service because of their sexual orientation.
Just because it would take an idiot to get caught doesn't mean it shouldn't be legally prohibited.
Furthermore, consider this scenario: a black man and an asian man walk into a bar. The bartender says, "We don't serve your kind here." The men leave and later bring a lawsuit under the civil rights act. The bar could just argue that they didn't serve the men because they thought they were gay, not because of their races. Judge says, "lol okay" and dismisses the case, because discrimination based on sexual orientation is legal.
Now, I'll admit, I'm being deliberately silly with this hypothetical scenario, but couldn't that kind of defense actually be used?
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:21 am to Hog on the Hill
I think that the bottom line is this: do you think it should be legal to refuse service to someone, refuse to hire someone, or be able to fire someone because of their sexual orientation?
I have trouble understanding why anyone who would answer "no" to that question would oppose making it illegal. 'because it's hard to enforce' is a terrible reason.
I have trouble understanding why anyone who would answer "no" to that question would oppose making it illegal. 'because it's hard to enforce' is a terrible reason.
This post was edited on 2/4/15 at 11:22 am
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:21 am to ElDawgHawg
quote:
You explain to a 4 year old why that girl has her hair cut like a boy and is holding hands and kissing that other girl! In my house that is not acceptable. PERIOD. and I shouldn't be forced to deal with that in public either.
So two consenting adults that love each other shouldn't be able to show affection in public because of your religious beliefs? Who is being touchy?
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:24 am to ElDawgHawg
quote:So you think your disgust trumps their rights? That's very self-righteous and self-centered of you. Maybe you should parent your children instead of telling other people how they can and can't behave in public. If you don't want your children to think it's okay to do those things, it's your job to explain it to them.
Don't lump this into "Christians" and non-Christians. I have a very simple philosophy... what you choose to do in the privacy of your own home is between you and God. What you do in public affects me and my family as well and I should have some rights in that area as well.
You explain to a 4 year old why that girl has her hair cut like a boy and is holding hands and kissing that other girl! In my house that is not acceptable. PERIOD. and I shouldn't be forced to deal with that in public either.
I would like to think I wouldn't discriminate if I was in a hiring/firing position, but I probably would. It's human nature.
Our society is WAY too touchy feely these days.
This post was edited on 2/4/15 at 11:25 am
Posted on 2/4/15 at 11:39 am to ElDawgHawg
So, you're saying that everybody around you should be forced to conform to your idea of what's ok.
I could go my entire life and be just fine not seeing two dudes kissing. If Tim Tebow and Michael Sam feel like they should make out though, they have that right.
I could go my entire life and be just fine not seeing two dudes kissing. If Tim Tebow and Michael Sam feel like they should make out though, they have that right.
Page 3 of 7
Latest Arkansas News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News