Tennessee Governor Signs Bill Overturning LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinance

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] one discriminatory law does not justify another, the only way to have no legal discriminatory laws is to have no discriminatory laws. surrealnumber5

Two real big questions that I've always thought of when it came down to the legality of discrimination: Is there and should there be a 'right' to discriminate against anyone on a public or private level when it comes to employment?bigdcstile

I can't say for certain. I think it should be legal, but I don't know if it should qualify as a moral right. As such, I would only want it implemented on the state level.

And does discrimination or the right to discriminate somehow aid the free market?bigdcstile

It's not that it's aiding the free market, but it's making the market free.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] jim crow laws were state enacted.....surrealnumber5

you should never be forced to serve someone you dont want to for any reason, businesses that discriminate would be driven out of business over time by competitors who do not use such policies, note that jim crow laws were vie government not the market.surrealnumber5

Ah the invisible free hand of the market. :lol: I bet all those southern diners were on the brink of bankruptcy weren't they.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you should never be forced to serve someone you dont want to for any reason, businesses that discriminate would be driven out of business over time by competitors who do not use such policies, note that jim crow laws were vie government not the market.HoolaHoopMan

Ah the invisible free hand of the market. :lol: I bet all those southern diners were on the brink of bankruptcy weren't they.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you should never be forced to serve someone you dont want to for any reason, businesses that discriminate would be driven out of business over time by competitors who do not use such policies, note that jim crow laws were vie government not the market.surrealnumber5

Ah the invisible free hand of the market. :lol: I bet all those southern diners were on the brink of bankruptcy weren't they.

Edit: I'm referring to your silly notion that discriminatory policies would be driven out with out intervention. We've seen what the free market is like, and it's completely discriminatory.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Ah the invisible free hand of the market. :lol: I bet all those southern diners were on the brink of bankruptcy weren't they.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] one discriminatory law does not justify another, the only way to have no legal discriminatory laws is to have no discriminatory laws. surrealnumber5

I was waiting for the inevitabe surrealnumber personal attack.

So glad you didn't dissapoint. :roll:

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] "those" as if we have previously talked about "them" pardon my laps of memory, what are those that i should recall?surrealnumber5

No, go ahead. Give the sources since they are pretty much essential to your argument.

as skilled labor became a requirement salaries increased and child labor decreased, by the time those laws were enacted child labor was already on the decline in the states, so yes the market was taking care of child labor issues, but i have a feeling even if i gave you sources it would be a waste of my time.

surrealnumber5

You are nuts to think that the free market would fix everything out there. People are selfish, and if child labor or discrimination saves them a few pennies on their end they won't mind.

It took the freaking great depression to officially outlaw child labor, and that was only because we needed to give the jobs to adults. The invisible hand of the free market is a joke.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] I agree; so get rid of the laws discriminating against LGBT citizens. Don't create them.GreySeal9

I was waiting for the inevitabe surrealnumber personal attack.

So glad you didn't dissapoint. :roll:

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] sigh, another gay user wants more "equality" than the next man, what ever you want to think dude......surrealnumber5

I was waiting for the inevitabe surrealnumber personal attack.

So glad you didn't dissapoint. :roll:

That doesn't make any sense.

I could call somebody a "fat ass" if they were fat and that would be technically true.

Are you telling me that wouldn't be a personal attack?

Your post was personal any way you slice it.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I was waiting for the inevitabe surrealnumber personal attack.

So glad you didn't dissapoint. :roll:

GreySeal9

That doesn't make any sense.

I could call somebody a "fat ass" if they were fat and that would be technically true.

Are you telling me that wouldn't be a personal attack?

Your post was personal any way you slice it.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] it is not a personal attack if true but i am glad you have not sopped your posting trendsurrealnumber5

That doesn't make any sense.

I could call somebody a "fat ass" if they were fat and that would be technically true.

Are you telling me that wouldn't be a personal attack?

Your post was personal any way you slice it.

Funny how you didn't even attempt to defend your "it's not a personal attack if true!" logic.

Your argument was clearly personal in nature, bringing his sexuality into it when you could have just said that you think his argument is tantamount to more equaity for minority groups.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

as skilled labor became a requirement salaries increased and child labor decreased, by the time those laws were enacted child labor was already on the decline in the states, so yes the market was taking care of child labor issues, but i have a feeling even if i gave you sources it would be a waste of my time.

HoolaHoopMan

You are nuts to think that the free market would fix everything out there. People are selfish, and if child labor or discrimination saves them a few pennies on their end they won't mind.

It took the freaking great depression to officially outlaw child labor, and that was only because we needed to give the jobs to adults. The invisible hand of the free market is a joke.

Agreed. That view pretty much depends on an absurdly optimistic view of human nature.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

That doesn't make any sense.

I could call somebody a "fat ass" if they were fat and that would be technically true.

Are you telling me that wouldn't be a personal attack?

Your post was personal any way you slice it.

GreySeal9

Funny how you didn't even attempt to defend your "it's not a personal attack if true!" logic.

Your argument was clearly personal in nature, bringing his sexuality into it when you could have just said that you think his argument is tantamount to more equaity for minority groups.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you would see a post from me about a cheese moon being a personal attack and then just like here you would try to spin it to attack me.surrealnumber5

Funny how you didn't even attempt to defend your "it's not a personal attack if true!" logic.

Your argument was clearly personal in nature, bringing his sexuality into it when you could have just said that you think his argument is tantamount to more equaity for minority groups.

Of course it is a personal attack. You could have just said "your view grants special treatment", but instead you went for "another gay that...etc." You clearly went the personal route and no amount of spinning is going to change that.

As for the bolded, as I told you, that doesn't make sense. Again, I could call somebody a "fat ass", and that could be both true and a personal attack. To say that a true commnent can't be a personal attack is downright absurd.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Funny how you didn't even attempt to defend your "it's not a personal attack if true!" logic.

Your argument was clearly personal in nature, bringing his sexuality into it when you could have just said that you think his argument is tantamount to more equaity for minority groups.

GreySeal9

Of course it is a personal attack. You could have just said "your view grants special treatment", but instead you went for "another gay that...etc." You clearly went the personal route and no amount of spinning is going to change that.

As for the bolded, as I told you, that doesn't make sense. Again, I could call somebody a "fat ass", and that could be both true and a personal attack. To say that a true commnent can't be a personal attack is downright absurd.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] a person who wants extra treatment because they are within a group and calling them out on it is not a personal attack on the individual only on the message they are trying to convey, that is a vested interest in the topic and no objectivity what so ever. i do not need to defend it not being a personal attack if true because it is not a personal attack if it is true, a spade is a spade and a cube a cube and neither the spade or cube is "attacked" if you note them as such.

surrealnumber5

Of course it is a personal attack. You could have just said "your view grants special treatment", but instead you went for "another gay that...etc." You clearly went the personal route and no amount of spinning is going to change that.

As for the bolded, as I told you, that doesn't make sense. Again, I could call somebody a "fat ass", and that could be both true and a personal attack. To say that a true commnent can't be a personal attack is downright absurd.

Oh, there goes the tired "political correctness" card that always somehow manages to be played on this forum. PC or not, you went the personal route.

Nobody is corrupting your words at all. Please show me where I have.

You clearly went the personal route by bringing his sexuality into it and calling him out in a personal manor instead of just arguing that his views grant special treatment.

If you didn't mean to get personal, what was the purpose of the "another gay user" remark?

[QUOTE="bigdcstile"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I don't see how it would be easy...

What you posted is just more ways you can be discriminated against other than the hiring process.

Just seems like another way for people to file ridiculous lawsuits and make a quick buck by government coercion.

SpartanMSU

But the thing is, it doesn't ensure equal rights...it creates more problems than it solves. Unintended consquences FTW.

What is your evidence for this statement? Not neccesarily saying you are wrong, but if you were to compare problems to solutions, what items would you list in either column? In what way does the drawbacks outweigh the benefits?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Of course it is a personal attack. You could have just said "your view grants special treatment", but instead you went for "another gay that...etc." You clearly went the personal route and no amount of spinning is going to change that.

As for the bolded, as I told you, that doesn't make sense. Again, I could call somebody a "fat ass", and that could be both true and a personal attack. To say that a true commnent can't be a personal attack is downright absurd.

GreySeal9

Oh, there goes the tired "political correctness" card that always somehow manages to be played on this forum. PC or not, you went the personal route.

Nobody is corrupting your words at all. Please show me where I have.

You clearly went the personal route by bringing his sexuality into it and calling him out in a personal manor instead of just arguing that his views grant special treatment.

If you didn't mean to get personal, what was the purpose of the "another gay user" remark?

Who discriminates against bisexuals? Unless they tell you about it you can't possibly know that that's their sexuality.

ROFLCOPTER603

I disagree with this logic.

I see no reason why one can't know about someone's bisexuality or atleast have a conception of someone's bisexuality without that personal telling them. For instance, one could find out from someone else or could see that person with a male partner at one point in time and with a female partner at another point in time. One could also find out on a social networking site.

Also, you say "unless they tell you about it". Well, bixesuals do tell people about it, and then people know, and then people can discriminate.

That being said, as I said before, there's other ways of finding out one is a bisexual without the bisexual revealing it themselves.

News like this always kills a little piece of me :(

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i do not hold your level of "political correctness" and do not see what i said as a personal attack, and because i am the author of my own words i know my intent. you can try to change my views or twist them to fit what ever notions of me you want, but no level of attempted corruption to my words will make you view correct. surrealnumber5

Oh, there goes the tired "political correctness" card that always somehow manages to be played on this forum. PC or not, you went the personal route.

Nobody is corrupting your words at all. Please show me where I have.

You clearly went the personal route by bringing his sexuality into it and calling him out in a personal manor instead of just arguing that his views grant special treatment.

If you didn't mean to get personal, what was the purpose of the "another gay user" remark?

I don't need wiggle room. The "another gay user" remark constitutes getting personal by any reasonable standard of what constitutes "personal".

You say that you had a purpose, but you didn't really build any case as to why "another gay user" mark furthered your point at all. It really just incorporated his sexual orientation into a point that could have been, as has been, made without any personal elements.

I'm not accusing you of "malice" because that would be melodramatic. But your statement does read like a personal attack, probably made out of annoyance with some of the points some gay users (hence the wordanother)make on this forum.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Oh, there goes the tired "political correctness" card that always somehow manages to be played on this forum. PC or not, you went the personal route.

Nobody is corrupting your words at all. Please show me where I have.

You clearly went the personal route by bringing his sexuality into it and calling him out in a personal manor instead of just arguing that his views grant special treatment.

If you didn't mean to get personal, what was the purpose of the "another gay user" remark?

GreySeal9

I don't need wiggle room. The "another gay user" remark constitutes getting personal any reasonable standard of what constitutes "personal".

You say that you had a purpose, but you didn't really build any case as to why "another gay user" mark furthered your point at all. It really just incorporated his sexual orientation into a point that could have been, as has been, made without any personal elements.

I'm not accusing you of "malice" because that would be melodramatic. But your statement does read like a personal attack, probably made out of annoyance with some of the points some gay users (hence the wordanother)make on this forum.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i have stated my intent as the author, that removes any sort of wiggle room for you to play with, i have already said why i pointed out he was gay and if you choose to go back in this conversation it was not because of malice. that was a few mins ago and i understand it is late and retention may be hard at this hour. surrealnumber5

I don't need wiggle room. The "another gay user" remark constitutes getting personal any reasonable standard of what constitutes "personal".

You say that you had a purpose, but you didn't really build any case as to why "another gay user" mark furthered your point at all. It really just incorporated his sexual orientation into a point that could have been, as has been, made without any personal elements.

I'm not accusing you of "malice" because that would be melodramatic. But your statement does read like a personal attack, probably made out of annoyance with some of the points some gay users (hence the wordanother)make on this forum.

OK, fair enough I suppose.

So much for that "small gubment" crap. :roll:

Theokhoth

I don't know the specifics of this law, so I am remaining neutral on the issue. Though I think nondiscrimination laws have overreached at times, and have been unfairly applied (for example its often easier for a black to sue a white over discrimination then it is for a white to sue a black).

One example of nondiscrimination going too far was that the Department of Justice actually investigated some guy for placing an advertisment looking for a Christian roommate because they thought it might be discriminatory, they did however drop the investigation. But it's rather ridiculous. I should be able to pick who I want for a room mate and if I don't want a certain person as my room mate because of their race or their homosexual inclination than that's my prerogatives not the governments, afterall I'de be the one living with them, not mr. Obama or Mr. Holder.

But on another note what does the T in LGBT stand for. LGB stands for Laser Guided Bomb, but what's the T. And it doesn't make much sense to have a nondiscrimination law about certain types of munitions, doesn't this law only affect the national guard?

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

But the thing is, it doesn't ensure equal rights...it creates more problems than it solves. Unintended consquences FTW.

wolverine4262

What? How is that my logic at all? If a law doesn't do what it's intended to do then what's the point of the law in the first place?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

as skilled labor became a requirement salaries increased and child labor decreased, by the time those laws were enacted child labor was already on the decline in the states, so yes the market was taking care of child labor issues, but i have a feeling even if i gave you sources it would be a waste of my time.

HoolaHoopMan

You are nuts to think that the free market would fix everything out there. People are selfish, and if child labor or discrimination saves them a few pennies on their end they won't mind.

It took the freaking great depression to officially outlaw child labor, and that was only because we needed to give the jobs to adults. The invisible hand of the free market is a joke.

I'm going to ask you several questions. Please respond with a "yes" or "no" answer.

Do you believe that the goal of every business is to make money?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

as skilled labor became a requirement salaries increased and child labor decreased, by the time those laws were enacted child labor was already on the decline in the states, so yes the market was taking care of child labor issues, but i have a feeling even if i gave you sources it would be a waste of my time.

SpartanMSU

You are nuts to think that the free market would fix everything out there. People are selfish, and if child labor or discrimination saves them a few pennies on their end they won't mind.

It took the freaking great depression to officially outlaw child labor, and that was only because we needed to give the jobs to adults. The invisible hand of the free market is a joke.

I'm going to ask you several questions. Please respond with a "yes" or "no" answer.

Do you believe that the goal of every business is to make money?

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

You are nuts to think that the free market would fix everything out there. People are selfish, and if child labor or discrimination saves them a few pennies on their end they won't mind.

It took the freaking great depression to officially outlaw child labor, and that was only because we needed to give the jobs to adults. The invisible hand of the free market is a joke.

HoolaHoopMan

I'm going to ask you several questions. Please respond with a "yes" or "no" answer.

Do you believe that the goal of every business is to make money?

Ok, good.

Do you believe that businesses generally hire people based on how much revenue they can bring in or by how much money they can save. Basically, they hire a person based on money.

Do you believe that businesses generally hire people based on how much revenue they can bring in or by how much money they can save. Basically, they hire a person based on money.

SpartanMSU

Ok, good.

Do you believe that businesses generally hire people based on how much revenue they can bring in or by how much money they can save. Basically, they hire a person based on money.

SpartanMSU

Yes and no. Generally people are hired because they would bring the company money by supplying the company with needed labor, however there are plenty of people out there that are hired simply because they have an in. "Who you know" can count for more than "What you know" in many instances.

Asking "why and how are people hired" isn't a simple yes and no question.

What exactly does this have to do with my comment on the invisible hand of the free market?

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Ok, good.

Do you believe that businesses generally hire people based on how much revenue they can bring in or by how much money they can save. Basically, they hire a person based on money.

HoolaHoopMan

Yes and no. Generally people are hired because they would bring the company money by supplying the company with needed labor, however there are plenty of people out there that are hired simply because they have an in. "Who you know" can count for more than "What you know" in many instances.

Asking "why and how are people hired" isn't a simple yes and no question.

What exactly does this have to do with my comment on the invisible hand of the free market?

That's why I said "generally". Of course there are exceptions.

So if you think that the goal of businesses is to make money and they generally hire people based on this, then why would a business not hire someone who they believed was most qualified to do just that? If they do discriminate, then they will be ran out of business by competitors who do not.

Imagine if every team in the NBA besides the Miami Heat decided to not allow black people on their teams. They'd be missing out on a lot of outstanding players. The Heat would dominate the league and the other teams would then see this and change.

This is just based on what you said yourself you believe.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Ok, good.

Do you believe that businesses generally hire people based on how much revenue they can bring in or by how much money they can save. Basically, they hire a person based on money.

SpartanMSU

Yes and no. Generally people are hired because they would bring the company money by supplying the company with needed labor, however there are plenty of people out there that are hired simply because they have an in. "Who you know" can count for more than "What you know" in many instances.

Asking "why and how are people hired" isn't a simple yes and no question.

What exactly does this have to do with my comment on the invisible hand of the free market?

That's why I said "generally". Of course there are exceptions.

So if you think that the goal of businesses is to make money and they generally hire people based on this, then why would a business not hire someone who they believed was most qualified to do just that? If they do discriminate, then they will be ran out of business by competitors who do not.

Imagine if every team in the NBA besides the Miami Heat decided to not allow black people on their teams. They'd be missing out on a lot of outstanding players. The Heat would dominate the league and the other teams would then see this and change.

This is just based on what you said yourself you believe.

That's why I said "generally". Of course there are exceptions.

So if you think that the goal of businesses is to make money and they generally hire people based on this, then why would a business not hire someone who they believed was most qualified to do just that? If they do discriminate, then they will be ran out of business by competitors who do not.

Imagine if every team in the NBA besides the Miami Heat decided to not allow black people on their teams. They'd be missing out on a lot of outstanding players. The Heat would dominate the league and the other teams would then see this and change.

This is just based on what you said yourself you believe.

SpartanMSU

I'm not disagreeing with you that some forms of descrimination will ultimately result in a larger profit margin for a company, infact I've explicity stated that it does when I brought up child labor. A child is going to be able to work for less than an adult in many roles thus it would be beneifical, fiscially speaking, to put children back into some roles (here we come coal mines!!!). The problem being that it's ****ing child labor.

I don't think discriminating people based on immutable traits like race, skin color, or orientation is worth a slighter better profit margin. I think it's disgusting. We've seen in the past that people don't care if companies discriminate if it saves them a couple bucks on their end.

Also, your NBA comparison really doesn't work. People are sought after by teams based on skill, not race or skin color. Them being black isn't what defines them as a player but rather their skill at the sport. There's nothing wrong with turning people down for not being qualifid to perform a task that is needed. I do find something wrong with turning people down based on something like race, orientation, skin color.

link an unbias article please, and I might consider listeningOverlord93

how are these articles biased and why does that matter? The fact remains that Tennessee is now making it legal for gays to be almost universally discriminated against. and thats what the topic at hand is.

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]link an unbias article please, and I might consider listeningarbitor365

how are these articles biased and why does that matter? The fact remains that Tennessee is now making it legal for gays to be almost universally discriminated against. and thats what the topic at hand is.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

That's why I said "generally". Of course there are exceptions.

So if you think that the goal of businesses is to make money and they generally hire people based on this, then why would a business not hire someone who they believed was most qualified to do just that? If they do discriminate, then they will be ran out of business by competitors who do not.

Imagine if every team in the NBA besides the Miami Heat decided to not allow black people on their teams. They'd be missing out on a lot of outstanding players. The Heat would dominate the league and the other teams would then see this and change.

This is just based on what you said yourself you believe.

HoolaHoopMan

I'm not disagreeing with you that some forms of descrimination will ultimately result in a larger profit margin for a company, infact I've explicity stated that it does when I brought up child labor. A child is going to be able to work for less than an adult in many roles thus it would be beneifical, fiscially speaking, to put children back into some roles (here we come coal mines!!!). The problem being that it's ****ing child labor.

I don't think discriminating people based on immutable traits like race, skin color, or orientation is worth a slighter better profit margin. I think it's disgusting. We've seen in the past that people don't care if companies discriminate if it saves them a couple bucks on their end.

Also, your NBA comparison really doesn't work. People are sought after by teams based on skill, not race or skin color. Them being black isn't what defines them as a player but rather their skill at the sport. There's nothing wrong with turning people down for not being qualifid to perform a task that is needed. I do find something wrong with turning people down based on something like race, orientation, skin color.

You COMPLETELY missed the point.

You COMPLETELY missed the point.

SpartanMSU

No, not really.

You seem to believe that discriminating business will be run out of business, however if history is any indicator we can see that's not the case. The free market didn't get rid of race discrimination or child labor, we had to enact laws to do that.

Edit: Discrimination can survive in the market, we've seen it do so.

Isn't discrimination illegal to begin with?

Why do you need an ordinance declaring a crime like discrimination as officially being illegal in the first place?

I disagree with overturning the ordinance.

But I also disagree with wasting money on this whole issue to begin with since it should be a GIVEN that discrimination is unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You COMPLETELY missed the point.

HoolaHoopMan

No, not really.

You seem to believe that discriminating business will be run out of business, however if history is any indicator we can see that's not the case. The free market didn't get rid of race discrimination or child labor, we had to enact laws to do that.

not having a law that makes a subjective act illegal is not the same as having a law that makes it legal. i dont see how you can defend a law that requires people to act a certain way, protectionist laws are just as bad as exclusionist laws, one could argue worse. a protectionist law only elevates one group where an exclusionist law only lowers one group. in the protectionist instant all other groups are lowered beneath the protected group. having no law means there is no special treatment....surrealnumber5

I would generally agree, but anti discrimination laws are sometimes neccesary for persecuted minorities.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You COMPLETELY missed the point.

surrealnumber5

No, not really.

You seem to believe that discriminating business will be run out of business, however if history is any indicator we can see that's not the case. The free market didn't get rid of race discrimination or child labor, we had to enact laws to do that.

Exactly.

You yourself (Hoopla) said you believe that the goal of a business is to make money and they hire people generally based on that...Do you see the contradiction yet?