Arizona SB1062 Discrimination Law

[Dotini]

Its always been my opinion that religion shouldn't be a part of government,

Back in the day before there was extensive government and law, the printed bible defined the way people should live and behave toward each other. It was the only thing people had as a guide.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This saying is one of the oldest notions known to man in that it is the basis of many of the ethical systems on which societies have been built. Many expressions of it in various versions have existed in the classic literature of Greece and Rome, as well as in Islamic, Taoist, Sikh and other religious texts. The English 'do unto others...' version is the biblical expression of it, and this appears in Matthew 7:12: (The Miles Coverdale Bible), 1535:

Therfore what soeuer ye wolde that me shulde do to you, eue so do ye to them. This ys the lawe and the Prophetes.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/do-unto-others.html

 

[Duke]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This saying is one of the oldest notions known to man in that it is the basis of many of the ethical systems on which societies have been built.

That's great, and in fact I agree... but what does that statement have to do with religion? Nothing direct. It is perfectly possible to make the "Golden Rule" a basis for society without any reference to supernatural religion at all.

 

[Famine]

Pity that the Romans kept slaves really. And the less said about nations that use the Qu'ran as rule of law the better.

Not that the Bible is any better, regarding its comments on rape victims, women and slaves.

 

[Dotini]

That's great, and in fact I agree... but what does that statement have to do with religion? Nothing direct. It is perfectly possible to make the "Golden Rule" a basis for society without any reference to supernatural religion at all.

Nothing, other than the fact it has been delivered to us by means of the religious bible, and is conflated with it. Obviously, in other cultures such as classical Greece, the message was delivered differently than it was in ours.

 

[Danoff]

@Touring Mars, I think Famine responded nicely for me.

When arguing in the US context its more complex because of the enshrinement of legally determined rights. Neither person's "human right" in the Walmart hypothesis supersedes the other (despite the property argument I couldn't find a colleague in the legal team who could say why that might come into such a case, the property argument is subjunct to the service) and therefore the recourse to balance is in law.

Human rights never supersede each other. Walmart is property, and as such, it subject to the whims of the property owner. I don't recognize any "service" argument of any kind. If you want to make any headway with those of us who are arguing Human Rights here, you have to stop referring to law. Law is flawed, there are thousands of terrible examples.

 

[Touring Mars]

Is there a right to equal treatment, outside of everyone having the same rights?

In UK law, yes - the right to equal treatment on the basis of so-called 'personal characteristics' (such as sex, race, etc.) is recognised and protected by the Equality Act.

I (sort of) understand the argument about laws - but my point was more about whether equal treatment on the basis of factors beyond one's control is or should be recognised as a right - that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. In the UK, for example, it is recognised as a right, and therefore someone who denies equal treatment on the basis of a 'personal characteristic' is committing a rights violation.

I accept that there are situations where discrimination is appropriate, acceptable or benign - casting a woman in a female role in a play, for example. But there are also situations where it is not acceptable or benign - refusing to serve a black person in a shop for no other reason than the fact that they are black, for example. In any case, it is not the general point about discrimination per se, but a specific case that is in question here... is it ever OK to deny equal treatment to someone simply because they are gay? I don't think it is OK, and I think that any law that is passed that specifically allows for people to behave like this cannot be right. But my broader point is that if equal treatment on the basis of one's personal characteristics is a right, then the law is irrelevant - from a rights point of view, denial of equal treatment is a violation of one's rights and therefore objectively wrong. But, as I said already, who considers what to be a right depends largely on one's political views.

 

[Famine]

In UK law, yes - the right to equal treatment on the basis of so-called 'personal characteristics' (such as sex, race, etc.) is recognised and protected by the Equality Act.

I (sort of) understand the argument about laws - but my point was more about whether equal treatment on the basis of factors beyond one's control is or should be recognised as a right - that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. In the UK, for example, it is recognised as a right, and therefore someone who denies equal treatment on the basis of a 'personal characteristic' is committing a rights violation.

No. It should be recognised as a fundamental purpose of government or public bodies, but we have to allow private citizens to hold whatever opinions they wish - about anything.

It seems wholly reasonable on the face of it to say people shouldn't discriminate. You're right - they shouldn't. It's stupid, irrational, illogical, mean and purposeless. But it's their right and we must not allow laws to be made that strip people of their rights to be assholes. It's a dangerous path down the road to fascism when you start banning opinion, even when that opinion is "I don't want no Chinese working for me" - you set a precedent that "this kind of opinion is wrong and it must be banned".

The thing is, we've already seen what happens in the UK when you start banning stupid opinions. It doesn't eradicate them - it cements them. People believe that the law says you can't be mean about a black guy if you're white, they believe that this gives black people favoured treatment under law and this makes them resent black people - whenever they see the race card being played, they believe it's unjustified even when it isn't. And what happens when you have a body of stupid people who believe their country is passing laws that make them lesser citizens? The BNP and UKIP. This has actually happened.

In a free society, people must be free to be idiots. It's society's job to educate them, not pass the buck to a representative body to use force against idiots.

is it ever OK to deny equal treatment to someone simply because they are gay?

No. That doesn't mean it should be illegal to do so - except in the case of public-owned bodies.

But my broader point is that if equal treatment on the basis of one's personal characteristics is a right, then the law is irrelevant - from a rights point of view, denial of equal treatment is a violation of one's rights and therefore objectively wrong.

You would need to establise, objectively, that it is a right to make that case.

It should go without saying that it'd be lovely if people looked at other people and saw other people, not black people, white people, gay people, women people - and so on and so forth. But the law isn't a tool for making things nice, it's for defending rights - since that's the only true purpose of a government. If society wants things nice, it has to do it itself - and this means education, including boycotting businesses that promote not-nice sentiments like a burly chap on the door to turn away black people.

To put it another way, do you treat women and men equally because there's been laws passed to say you should, or do you do it because it's the right thing to do? Would you treat women and men differently if the law said you should, or would you treat them the same because it's the right thing to do?

 

[Omnis]

From what I've read, the whole issue with this bill starts with a christian wedding photographer that refused to be a part of the ceremony of a gay couple's wedding. Don't know the details, but that certainly seems perfectly reasonable to me. Were the gay couple going to sue her for discrimination? That seems a bit ridiculous to me. Who knows, they could've won too. If this law is supposed to prevent that, then I see where they're going. But it's not worded right to achieve that end.

I do not just accept that this is a new jim crow hate law for gays. Too many people are caught in the social media reaction tidal wave started by sensationalists. Will have to read more on it.

The most puzzling thing I see so far is why a law is even necessary.

 

[Dotini]

Would you treat women and men differently if the law said you should, or would you treat them the same because it's the right thing to do?

If I had to get Jaime Lannister to King's Landing, I'd do it with men - unless the women were built like Brienne of Tarth.

 

[Blitz24]

From what I've read, the whole issue with this bill starts with a christian wedding photographer that refused to be a part of the ceremony of a gay couple's wedding. Don't know the details, but that certainly seems perfectly reasonable to me. Were the gay couple going to sue her for discrimination? That seems a bit ridiculous to me. Who knows, they could've won too. If this law is supposed to prevent that, then I see where they're going. But it's not worded right to achieve that end.

I do not just accept that this is a new jim crow hate law for gays. Too many people are caught in the social media reaction tidal wave started by sensationalists. Will have to read more on it.

The most puzzling thing I see so far is why a law is even necessary.

Why can't that person choose not to? Or was it last second she decided to leave them on the hook?

 

[Omnis]

I don't know. But if she left them on the hook it's a simple civil suit. She's either in the wrong or the couple didn't read her terms of service.

What I think is wrong is the ability for the couple to sue her for discrimination in addition to their real grievance (OMG, you didn't take my pictures.)

 

[Touring Mars]

It seems wholly reasonable on the face of it to say people shouldn't discriminate. You're right - they shouldn't. It's stupid, irrational, illogical, mean and purposeless. But it's their right and we must not allow laws to be made that strip people of their rights to be assholes. It's a dangerous path down the road to fascism when you start banning opinion, even when that opinion is "I don't want no Chinese working for me" - you set a precedent that "this kind of opinion is wrong and it must be banned".

Banning opinion is one thing, but making certain actions illegal is a different matter. I'd go a bit further than to say that unfair discrimination on the basis of sex, race etc. is not merely stupid, illogical etc., but is simply wrong on the basis that such discrimination is (in the UK anyway) a violation of one's rights.

In a free society, people must be free to be idiots.

... but at the same time, is it not reasonable to suggest that there ought to be something more substantive than mere disapproval for people who behave like idiots (as opposed to merely holding idiotic views or even expressing them) or legal recourse for those who are disadvantaged by such actions?

You would need to establise, objectively, that it is a right to make that case.

The same can be said for any human right. And as I've said in the past, what is regarded as a right by some is not regarded as a right by others.

I would add more but I have to go, however I'll attempt to read/write a bit more over the weekend.

 

[Blitz24]

I don't know. But if she left them on the hook it's a simple civil suit. She's either in the wrong or the couple didn't read her terms of service.

What I think is wrong is the ability for the couple to sue her for discrimination in addition to their real grievance (OMG, you didn't take my pictures.)

We live in America, where you can sue a company for YOU spilling hot apple cider on yourself. Too many lawyers in this country convincing people to become money hungry and foolish.

 

[Famine]

Banning opinion is one thing, but making certain actions illegal is a different matter. I'd go a bit further than to say that unfair discrimination on the basis of sex, race etc. is not merely stupid, illogical etc., but is simply wrong on the basis that such discrimination is (in the UK anyway) a violation of one's rights.

It's illegal - a violation of legal rights - but not a violation of rights.

The opinion that you don't like Chinese people mainfests into you not wanting to work for, work with or employ Chinese people. None of those things are immoral or a rights violation - but they are illegal (if shown to be in a court of law). There's no reason for them to be.

... but at the same time, is it not reasonable to suggest that there ought to be something more substantive than mere disapproval for people who behave like idiots (as opposed to merely holding idiotic views or even expressing them) or legal recourse for those who are disadvantaged by such actions?

No.

We're forever having to argue with people who genuinely believe that evolution is myth (or worse, "just a theory" ). It's a bit tiresome, but we don't let the misconceptions go unanswered. Why don't we petition for a law that would punish these people for holding daft views? Because it'd be absolutely insane to suggest someone should attract more than mere disapproval for their views - much more so if it's actual full on legal recourse.

And while this may seem like a pretty weird comparison on the face of it, may I present to you this exact situation occurring in Germany and Austria for people who hold the daft view that the Holocaust didn't happen. And that really needs to sink in, because this is a situation where people are literally imprisoned for holding views that are stupid because other people hold them to be offensive - not that far from what racism is.


I get that you're saying that you're after how people act, not how they think, but the two are intrinsically linked - people act according to their prevailing mindset and beliefs. Women who've been raped (by men) are often uncomfortable around men afterwards and would preferentially keep the company of other women - employing women, working with women, working for women, requesting female doctors - and that is absolutely as it should be. A photographer who disagrees with homosexuality doesn't want to photograph a gay couple's wedding - that is absolutely as it should be. We shouldn't be punishing these people for sexism and homophobia because it is their right to think as they do and it is no-one else's right to demand they don't.

The same can be said for any human right.

Yes. Notice that a lot of the UNUDHR cannot be established objectively - and contradicts itself.

And as I've said in the past, what is regarded as a right by some is not regarded as a right by others.

That's not really relevant when we're talking about rights being established objectively. Evolution is not regarded as fact by some, but the reality is it has been established objectively - they can still think it's wrong if they want to though.

 

[GTsail]

If the Arizona SB1062 bill was signed into law, how do you think the following situation would be handled?

BobGT, an atheist, lives in Yuma Arizona.

One hot summer day, his house catches on fire so he calls the Yuma Fire Department. The Yuma Fire Department sends out a fire truck driven by JohnPaul and Abraham.

Once they get to BobGT's house, JohnPaul rushes over to BobGT and asks him if he's Catholic. BobGT says no, he's not Catholic, so JohnPaul tells Mr. GT that he can't help with the house fire because its against his religion to help non-believers, so JohnPaul gets back on the fire truck.

So then Abraham asks BobGT if he's Muslim. BobGT says no, he's not Muslim, so Abraham tells Mr. GT that he can't help with the house fire because its against his religion to help non-believers, so Abraham gets back on the fire truck, and BobGT's house burns down.

Would the Arizona SB1062 law allow such discrimination on the part of the Yuma Fire Department?


Arizona has a number of "private" Fire Departments (they are owned and operated by private companies as fire protection services).

Would the Arizona bill (if signed into law) allow the above discrimination if the Yuma Fire Department was run by a "private" company?


PS: I don't mean to imply that either Catholics or Muslims would be likely to behave this way, I'm just providing a religious example.
Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

...

Depends on the contract between the private fire company and the government. Are they simply operating it for the government under government rules like we do with prisons? If so, they're not allowed to discriminate.

Is it a fully owned and operated private entity without a government contract? Then it would depend on the contract between the homeowners of the area and the fire company. Most likely, if you move into the jurisdiction of that fire company then part of the terms would be to opt in or out of fire service. Sorta like how townships often don't provide garbage service as a city would. Homeowners have to opt in with a private company. On the flip side, their taxes are lower because they aren't taken to pay for city garbage service.

Contracts, contracts, contracts. Private entities live or die by contracts. Both sides of a contract need to fully understand all the terms before signing.

 

[Danoff]

But my broader point is that if equal treatment on the basis of one's personal characteristics is a right, then the law is irrelevant - from a rights point of view, denial of equal treatment is a violation of one's rights and therefore objectively wrong. But, as I said already, who considers what to be a right depends largely on one's political views.

You have a fundamental right to equal treatment from your government. The purpose of government is to uphold rights, and human beings have rights that are the same, so government must treat them the same. It absolutely is a rights violation if your government passes a law that says black people cannot go to a certain street, or that gay people cannot enter into a marriage contract. What you don't have is the right to equal treatment from other people. For example, your wife is allowed to treat you differently than your neighbor. She's allowed to use whatever subjective criteria she wants to decide that she wants to be nicer to you, or meaner to you in some cases, than to your neighbor. To do anything else would be to initiate force against her.

 

[Omnis]

If the Arizona SB1062 bill was signed into law, how do you think the following situation would be handled?

BobGT, an atheist, lives in Yuma Arizona.

One hot summer day, his house catches on fire so he calls the Yuma Fire Department. The Yuma Fire Department sends out a fire truck driven by JohnPaul and Abraham.

Once they get to BobGT's house, JohnPaul rushes over to BobGT and asks him if he's Catholic. BobGT says no, he's not Catholic, so JohnPaul tells Mr. GT that he can't help with the house fire because its against his religion to help non-believers, so JohnPaul gets back on the fire truck.

So then Abraham asks BobGT if he's Muslim. BobGT says no, he's not Muslim, so Abraham tells Mr. GT that he can't help with the house fire because its against his religion to help non-believers, so Abraham gets back on the fire truck, and BobGT's house burns down. (1)

Would the Arizona SB1062 law allow such discrimination on the part of the Yuma Fire Department? (2)


Arizona has a number of "private" Fire Departments (they are owned and operated by private companies as fire protection services).

Would the Arizona bill (if signed into law) allow the above discrimination if the Yuma Fire Department was run by a "private" company? (3)


PS: I don't mean to imply that either Catholics or Muslims would be likely to behave this way, I'm just providing a religious example.
Respectfully,
GTsail

1. That is a completely ridiculous scenario. It would never occur as you have suggested. Let's try to stay in the real world instead of making useless hypothetical situations.

2. No, it wouldn't. First responders have a lawful duty to help. It would be criminal negligence to show up to a fire and then just drive away without doing anything.

3. A private fire brigade would contract with the homeowners they cover. If they are under contract to dispatch to the home in case of fire, then they must honor their contract. If they don't, the homeowner can sue them for negligence and violating the terms of their agreement. That said, it would be completely against the interests of private firefighters to refuse service to one homeowner in the whole neighborhood. It just doesn't make any sense and the scenario offered up is one grounded purely in fantasy.

The law changes the language of the laws they already have on the books. Where churches and religious organizations are allowed to refuse services for things they deem inappropriate, the new law would just extend personhood from those organizations to individuals and other groups.

From what I've read, this doesn't mean that Pious Pete is now allowed to refuse to serve sweet-folk coffee in his restaurant. But if he refuses to rent out his place for a gay wedding or a buttsex orgy party, or doesn't want a gay-couple baby-adoption-shower being celebrated on his property, he would be able to decline service without fear of state action against him. In other words, the gay party would not be able to sue him for discrimination or hate-crimes.

To be honest, I don't see a problem with this. The only reason I could come up with to justify changing this law was to provide protection against discrimination lawsuits. It's really just an economic issue that will either solve itself or go through common law processes in the courts to arrive at a conclusion.

 

[Keef]

1. That is a completely ridiculous scenario. It would never occur as you have suggested. Let's try to stay in the real world instead of making useless hypothetical situations.

...

It just doesn't make any sense and the scenario offered up is one grounded purely in fantasy.

Hypotheticals are useful to help somebody understand a concept in their terms. Every question has an answer.

 

[Famine]

From what I've read, this doesn't mean that Pious Pete is now allowed to refuse to serve sweet-folk coffee in his restaurant. But if he refuses to rent out his place for a gay wedding or a buttsex orgy party, or doesn't want a gay-couple baby-adoption-shower being celebrated on his property, he would be able to decline service without fear of state action against him. In other words, the gay party would not be able to sue him for discrimination or hate-crimes.

To be honest, I don't see a problem with this.

The problem is it would limit it to refusal on religious grounds only.

If you're an atheist that finds homosexuality disgusting, you'd be out of luck (as well as being wrong). Oh, and it promotes sectarianism too - never great.

 

[Omnis]

See, but the ones he made are wrong prima facie. It should be obvious that the firefighters would be in the wrong in those cases.

The problem is it would limit it to refusal on religious grounds only.

If you're an atheist that finds homosexuality disgusting, you'd be out of luck (as well as being wrong).

That's a good point. I'm not saying the bill as drafted was good, but I think I see what they're trying to accomplish. And I think it's fueled more by liability than by hate.

 

[GTsail]

Depends on the contract between the private fire company and the government.**** Most likely, if you move into the jurisdiction of that fire company then part of the terms would be to opt in or out of fire service. Sorta like how townships often don't provide garbage service as a city would. Homeowners have to opt in with a private company.

I think that in the smaller towns in Arizona, the model is as you say, an opt-in or opt-out model for the specific fire protection coverage from the local private fire department. I don't know about the larger cities, they may essentially be under contract from the city itself.

The danger of relying soley upon "contracts" to determine discrimination is that you could easily get back to quasi Jim Crow situations:

Lets say that a "private" fire protection service covers everyone in the city of Yuma Arizona, and everyone is paying their fee for this service, so everyone is under "contract" directly with the "private" fire protection service company and therefore Arizona's SB1062 law wouldn't protect any firemen from negligence lawsuits for breech of contract if they behaved as I hypothosised in the scenario above.

Then two families move into the city. An African American family and a Jewish family.

The owner of the "private" fire protection company doesn't like African Americans or Jewish Americans so s/he refuses to enter into a contract with either of these two families for any fire protection services. There are no other private or public fire protection companies in my hypothetical city, so neither of these two new families can get any fire protection services for their houses. Yes, they can start their own "private" fire protection company, but I imagine that this might be a challenge for just two families on their own. Eventually, as more African Americans or Jewish people moved into the area, I suspect that it would be possible to have another "private" fire protection company that would be happy to provide the fire protection services and wouldn't discriminate against certain ethnic races or cultures.

But it seems to me that this would essentially be encouraging/allowing a return to the "Jim Crow" era where services/stores/theaters, etc were operated specifically for specific races or ethnic cultures. This kind of societal discrimination is a detriment to the advancement of a country (at least in my opinion).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Exorcet]

In UK law, yes - the right to equal treatment on the basis of so-called 'personal characteristics' (such as sex, race, etc.) is recognised and protected by the Equality Act.

I (sort of) understand the argument about laws - but my point was more about whether equal treatment on the basis of factors beyond one's control is or should be recognised as a right - that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. In the UK, for example, it is recognised as a right, and therefore someone who denies equal treatment on the basis of a 'personal characteristic' is committing a rights violation.

I think Famine gave a good example, bringing up the difference in treatment between a spouse and a neighbor. Equal treatment across the board isn't really realistic, nor is a lack of it necessarily bad. I don't think personal characteristics change that, especially since they may actually bolster the desire to provide different treatment to different people. While it might be a UK law, that doesn't make it a right. By definition, you can't have a "UK right", so either equal treatment is a right or it's not. I don't think it is.

No one in this thread wants to see a person denied entry to Walmart or something for a stupid reason, but to say that's going to be the ultimate effect of granting the right to discriminate to people is going too far. At the very least counter arguments suggesting the opposite have been made, and I think they make sense. Like I said before, if racism or something like it was rampant in a population, I don't think laws would make a difference anyway. Laws could easily become tools to spread oppression.

is it ever OK to deny equal treatment to someone simply because they are gay? I don't think it is OK, and I think that any law that is passed that specifically allows for people to behave like this cannot be right. But my broader point is that if equal treatment on the basis of one's personal characteristics is a right, then the law is irrelevant - from a rights point of view, denial of equal treatment is a violation of one's rights and therefore objectively wrong. But, as I said already, who considers what to be a right depends largely on one's political views.

Denying equal treatment, in the broadest sense is absolutely OK. If you're not at all attracted to the same sex, you will of course shut out any gay person interested in you when it comes to sex, but you may not automatically do the same with someone of the opposite sex. If you're paranoid about it you might refuse to live with someone gay who is your own sex. I personally don't see a good reason to avoid taking someone's photo because they're gay, but if hypothetically seeing a gay person made you feel sick, I'd say first you have a problem and second that it might actually be good for both parties if you avoided each other.

On the last bit, again laws and rights are different. Rights are supposed to be objective and shouldn't vary. I'll admit to being as politically astute as a tree stump, so I like to use logic instead where I can. I don't always come into a thread like this knowing the answer I want to side with, sometimes I need to think it through. In this case I'm not seeing equal treatment as being a logical thing. The potential for blankism does bother me, but allowing discrimination may be good in that regard anyway.

The owner of the "private" fire protection company doesn't like African Americans or Jewish Americans so s/he refuses to enter into a contract with either of these two families for any fire protection services. There are no other private or public fire protection companies in my hypothetical city, so neither of these two new families can get any fire protection services for their houses. Yes, they can start their own "private" fire protection company, but I imagine that this might be a challenge for just two families on their own. Eventually, as more African Americans or Jewish people moved into the area, I suspect that it would be possible to have another "private" fire protection company that would be happy to provide the fire protection services and wouldn't discriminate against certain ethnic races or cultures.

This sounds more like the case where you have laws protecting against discrimination in place. Now those lose would deny the fire dept from outright ignoring a fire, but wouldn't stop them from being slow or uncaring. If it went undetected, they would remain slow and uncaring forever.

If the fire dept was allowed to discriminate, the families simply wouldn't move there. And it's possible other families would move out.

But it seems to me that this would essentially be encouraging/allowing a return to the "Jim Crow" era where services/stores/theaters, etc were operated specifically for specific races or ethnic cultures. This kind of societal discrimination is a detriment to the advancement of a country (at least in my opinion).

Respectfully,
GTsail

If the population is so inclined to hate each other, why would laws be any good?

 

[Danoff]

I think that in the smaller towns in Arizona, the model is as you say, an opt-in or opt-out model for the specific fire protection coverage from the local private fire department. I don't know about the larger cities, they may essentially be under contract from the city itself.

The danger of relying soley upon "contracts" to determine discrimination is that you could easily get back to quasi Jim Crow situations:

Lets say that a "private" fire protection service covers everyone in the city of Yuma Arizona, and everyone is paying their fee for this service, so everyone is under "contract" directly with the "private" fire protection service company and therefore Arizona's SB1062 law wouldn't protect any firemen from negligence lawsuits for breech of contract if they behaved as I hypothosised in the scenario above.

Then two families move into the city. An African American family and a Jewish family.

The owner of the "private" fire protection company doesn't like African Americans or Jewish Americans so s/he refuses to enter into a contract with either of these two families for any fire protection services. There are no other private or public fire protection companies in my hypothetical city, so neither of these two new families can get any fire protection services for their houses. Yes, they can start their own "private" fire protection company, but I imagine that this might be a challenge for just two families on their own. Eventually, as more African Americans or Jewish people moved into the area, I suspect that it would be possible to have another "private" fire protection company that would be happy to provide the fire protection services and wouldn't discriminate against certain ethnic races or cultures.

But it seems to me that this would essentially be encouraging/allowing a return to the "Jim Crow" era where services/stores/theaters, etc were operated specifically for specific races or ethnic cultures. This kind of societal discrimination is a detriment to the advancement of a country (at least in my opinion).

Monopolies don't exist without government sponsorship, but you're touching on one of the reasons that fire departments often have contracts with city governments rather than directly with customers. And the reason is that nobody wants to live next to someone who doesn't have a fire department. That includes minorities - because your house can catch fire just as easily from their house as from a white person's house.

 

[Omnis]

Lets say that a "private" fire protection service covers everyone in the city of Yuma Arizona, and everyone is paying their fee for this service, so everyone is under "contract" directly with the "private" fire protection service company and therefore Arizona's SB1062 law wouldn't protect any firemen from negligence lawsuits for breech of contract if they behaved as I hypothosised in the scenario above.

Then two families move into the city. An African American family and a Jewish family.

The owner of the "private" fire protection company doesn't like African Americans or Jewish Americans so s/he refuses to enter into a contract with either of these two families for any fire protection services. There are no other private or public fire protection companies in my hypothetical city, so neither of these two new families can get any fire protection services for their houses. Yes, they can start their own "private" fire protection company, but I imagine that this might be a challenge for just two families on their own. Eventually, as more African Americans or Jewish people moved into the area, I suspect that it would be possible to have another "private" fire protection company that would be happy to provide the fire protection services and wouldn't discriminate against certain ethnic races or cultures.

OK, this is much better now and a lot more realistic than just two firemen packing up and taking off.

Rather than starting their own fire company, there is a better solution: Boycott. Maybe the firemen can afford losing one or two houses. But what if the whole neighborhood of non-racist, non-antisemitic, non-asshole homeowners gets wind of what the fire company is doing to their neighbors? They could certainly boycott the fire services. The firemen would either have to put their prejudices aside or face bankruptcy.

An even better solution: homeowners association. There's nothing stopping each home from associating with each other and contracting for fire services as a group. That's what happens in rural Arkansas. A big enough association could yield a de facto city fire department. It's all up to what people want to do.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Famine, I've been through the Human Rights thread at length and you're still missing my point that this is a case in America, not the overall area-of-coverage of the Human Rights Act.

The Human Rights Act is only a piece of law and is as relevant as anything on the American statute in this thread, but only as a piece of law. The motivation behind it is irrelevant except in legal interpretation of the wording.

Right, in the context of American law, is inherited from the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Amendments and all case law. Whatever the word "right" means before that instance (in the Human Rights laws or anywhere) stops being relevant because a specific definition is given. All people have the right to equality. That's it. It echoes the Human Rights act in that sense but actually uses the word "right" in the definition.

I still don't understand why, for this thread, the overall definition of right in a wider sense is relevant? You can never divorce right from law without anarchy, right doesn't exist without judgement otherwise it is self-righteousness.

@GTsail290 , I think it's been a long time since any brigade refused to tackle a fire on the basis that the property owners were black, Jewish, whatever. Allowing the proliferation of laws that allow discrimination on the basis of the kinds of things that humankind have collectively agreed are wrong will send us straight back there.

@Omnis , like the Fire Dept. example several theories in this thread allow selectivism to exist in certain ways. There's no reason why it shouldn't, they're cases that would never be brought and therefore right would never be questioned. This law would never be used in that case... so like many other examples (lawn raking, gangs of homosexual black rapists) it would be moot.

People can discriminate in a million ways and never get caught. There's something I do every day that's wildly discriminatory and I ought to be ashamed, frankly. It's BMW-related.

There are other discriminations that are perfectly normal and legal that actually protect the rights of people to enjoy property or service. This law would never touch those either. The parameters for where this case can be used are pretty narrow, the wild "what if" examples aren't actually in the ballpark where this law would be played.

EDIT: Oh, hell, argued with two mods simultaneously. I'll just get me coat...

 

[Famine]

@Famine, I've been through the Human Rights thread at length and you're still missing my point that this is a case in America, not the overall area-of-coverage of the Human Rights Act.

Not at all. I fully accept that when you say "right" you mean "legal permission granted by US law". I'm just saying you're wrong to use "right" in this sense.

I still don't understand why, for this thread, the overall definition of right in a wider sense is relevant?

In the same way that in the evolution thread, the common parlance "theory" to mean "guess" should be discouraged in favour of the accurate "explanation for all known facts and observations".

You can never divorce right from law without anarchy, right doesn't exist without judgement otherwise it is self-righteousness.

I think you do humanity a disservice - but you do touch on why we have law.

The purpose of law is a framework to protect rights from individuals or groups who would deny them - your anarchists. The purpose of government is to create that law, ensure it upholds rights and marshall bodies of force to serve the law and protect the innocent citizens (to protect and to serve... catchy) it represents.

For the largest part, law does this but it can be used in the exact opposite way - to deny rights. This occurred prior to your Civil War, when it was legal - and thus, by the argument that what is legal is right - to force men into servitude, beat and mutilate them, imprison and barter them and deny them the basic freedoms enjoyed by other men. Slavery just isn't right, but it was legal.

What is a law and what is a right can overlap but they do not necessarily do so, even though they ought to.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Famine, I completely accept every part of your explanation. I accept that I have continued to talk about right in the sense of right-defended-by-law and why you have continued to 'upwardly' refer me to the overall Human Rights topic.

I agree with some of the 'rights' proposed and debated in there, and not with others. Worldwide the same phenomenon happens... so what are the 'actual' rights that our mostly-democractically-elected representatives have ratified? The International Bill of Human Rights... which is interpreted and disseminated as law, policed by the general assembly of the United Nations and signed by all members.

When one talks about the "idea" of right then the Human Rights thread shows a fantastic spread of sense, madness, all the things you see in the world. It doesn't actually list any rights that are agreed and ratified by the members assembled in the thread. Our ratified rights as users here are informed primarily by the AUP (and then by regional and international laws and treaties).

The way we actually practice, explore, grant, remove, alter, judge right as a collective society is through ratifications of lists of rights and processes for ensuring that they can be enjoyed, and for weighing the outcomes where it is found they cannot.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't a right until someone agrees that it is. In modern society we agree collectively and democratically through a process that is itself implemented via a strictly legislated framework. That's our right. But only because someone wrote it down and agreed it legally.

Until then I say it was just a dream

 

[Danoff]

@TenEightyOne

Well that would be true if human rights were created by people democratically - but as has been established (and agreed to by you) people democratically come up with all kinds of crazy stuff, some of which is absolutely horrific. The UN list of rights being not so much horrific as contradictory and untenable.

So where do human rights come from? Logic. As such, if there are only two people on the planet and they disagree about whether one of them can steal from the other, logic demonstrates that it is wrong to do so. No consensus needed, and, in fact, the whole point of rights is to avoid needing a democratic consensus - I'll refer you again to my signature.

If rights were determined democratically, those aren't rights, that's pure democracy - rule of the majority, the mob. The whole reason the US has a bill of rights is to avoid precisely that.

 

[Famine]

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't a right until someone agrees that it is.

No.

A right isn't protected properly until someone says it is. That's a law - and a good one. The right continues to exist, objectively, whether it's agreed with or not, protected or not, upheld or denied. It is morally wrong that the US government endorsed the subjugation of "lesser" men and it is morally right that it no longer does so. It is morally wrong that the Ugandan government imprisons homosexuals for life and morally right that governments around the world are removing barriers to their equal treatment under law.