Congress 2010 Thread

[Famine]

I don't agree with that. Racist don't make for a free society in my opinion because they are out to infringe on the rights of others, specifically those of the races they don't like.

What rights does the B&B owner I mentioned earlier (the Catholic woman who turned away a gay couple who'd booked a room) infringe? After all, she wouldn't serve a gay couple.

The key to a free society is not to limit people who would say things you don't like - what's then to stop them limiting you from saying things they don't like?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I don't know, it's hard to say since I don't know the data. I don't think legislation against things is a waste of money though.

So... legislation that doesn't work and is ignored isn't a waste of money?

I think telling people it's "OK" to discriminate against people based on race if you want to, is the wrong education.

Good. Since I was saying the exact opposite, you won't have a problem then?

It's easy for you to make a glib reply - until recently white supremacists in the southern US were able to terrorize, beat & murder African-Americans with impunity. Maybe they & their relatives wouldn't find your comment amusing.

Indeed. Joey said they were threatening. So, how recently? Recently enough that a Klansman in full Halloween dress on his own in Harlem is considered threatening enough to be refused service at a Pharmacy when all he wants is aspirin to put under his tongue as he recognises he's about to have a heart attack?

I wouldn't serve a Klansman because he's a dick. I wouldn't expect anyone else to serve a Klansman. Nor would I make a law that says a Klansman must be served. Or women. Or black people. Or smelly people. But then I don't pretend that just because someone's selling something, they must be denied the same freedoms the rest of us get. Nor do I have a problem with them refusing me service because I'm white, straight or male.

 

[Sureboss]

because I'm white, straight or male.

IF (getUsername() == "Famine")
{
setLiarRating (CFixed(99.0));
}

 

[Keef]

Really? I need to keep answering this?

I have never said it's bad for a politician to be honest, I have addressed this several times now actually. I said a politician who's smart chooses their words carefully so things don't bite them in the backside later on.

You're answering just as your favorite politicians would answer it, which is without an actual answer. A person that held his integrity higher than losing a simple argument would have been straight about it I feel.

Unless they are doing something to cause a scene, then no, what bases would the store keeper have for turning them away?

So what you're saying is that you would allow their outfits to be turned away but not necessarily the people inside them, despite the fact that a bed sheet literally cannot be threatening in any way unless used in a threatening way by a person.

 

[Joey D]

So what you're saying is that you would allow their outfits to be turned away but not necessarily the people inside them, despite the fact that a bed sheet literally cannot be threatening in any way unless used in a threatening way by a person.

Yes, and the outfit can be and is threatening.

 

[Biggles]

I wouldn't serve a Klansman because he's a dick. I wouldn't expect anyone else to serve a Klansman. Nor would I make a law that says a Klansman must be served. Or women. Or black people. Or smelly people. But then I don't pretend that just because someone's selling something, they must be denied the same freedoms the rest of us get. Nor do I have a problem with them refusing me service because I'm white, straight or male.

Walking around dressed as a Klansman is not the same thing as being white, or black, or gay, or smelly. For one thing being a Klansman is a "choice", & unlike the Klan, there is no history (that I'm aware of) of smelly people, as a group, terrorizing, beating & murdering another group.

I would say there is a significant public benefit that comes from businesses not being able to arbitrarily choose not to provide services to one group or another. I understand that libertarians believe that "market forces" will sort everything out for the best. I am very sceptical about this & believe that the outcome would more likely be a more fractured, intolerant & uncivil society.

 

[FoolKiller]

Look at the backlash. There is your evidence. He should have known that when he made the slightest inclination that store owners should be allowed to not serve blacks that there would be an issue made out of it. Political history should tell you that. Hell I know that and I'm not a politician. All one has to do is watch the TV during election time to see the mud slinging.

Yep, backlash. Evidence that there would be backlash. That is not evidence that he was ignorant of the fact that a backlash would occur. What is the evidence that he was ignorant of that fact?

Really? I need to keep answering this?

I have never said it's bad for a politician to be honest, I have addressed this several times now actually. I said a politician who's smart chooses their words carefully so things don't bite them in the backside later on.

Two points:
1) You act like it was bad that he was honest. You took a on a full fledged negative attitude about the whole thing and called him ignorant and stupid. When I pointed out he was being honest your response was, "No, he's ignorant."

2) You seem to have this idea that it was a single question in a larger interview and not a case of Rachel Maddow drilling him on this one subject for the entire interview, and not letting him go until she got the answer she wanted. He tried repeatedly to give what you would term a smart answer and she didn't let it go.

Unless they are doing something to cause a scene, then no, what bases would the store keeper have for turning them away?

They are racist biggots who devoted large portions of their lives to trying to take the shopkeepers rights away. I'm white and I would refuse to serve them.

I don't see why whites should be allowed in the Black Student Association or straights in homosexual groups.

Because if you don't it is discrimination and would lead to some sort of horrible society in which every business just becomes a private club and unless you are part of that special group you can't get service.
[/sarcasm]

The follow-up should be: Would you support the government forcing them to allow it.

At Oakland it was campus policy that all groups had to admit all people, I knew several straights people that were in the homosexual organisations.

And? Unless you are trying to use a "the rules say so, so it is right," argument I am not sure what your point is. That was an individual campus rule.

Yes, and the outfit can be and is threatening.

So, if I owned a shop I should be allowed to turn this guy away?

For the sake of argument, let's pretend he isn't wielding the nightstick.

The fact that the transcripts don't read like that is very, very disingenuous, especially when you consider how the collectivist news media went and reported the wrong information based on an incorrect transcript.

From a professional point of view, that transcript format is crap. It doesn't conform to the AP Stylebook and is clearly not verbatim.

It should have been done like this:

MADDOW: Should a business be allowed to refuse...

Dr. PAUL: Yeah--

MADDOW: ...to serve black people?

Dr. PAUL: I'm not in favor of discrimination of any form.



If you look at the CNN story that I posted and quoted they do not include the Yes. But then CNN do transcripts of every single one of their major shows every day. Honestly, if that MSNBC transcript came out of my company for a client we would be at risk of legal liability because it conveys a different message than the video itself.



But here are some clips from people defending Rand Paul:

First, Chris Matthews the day after the controversy started by Jack Conway lying on his program by saying that Rand Paul wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. Note: He points out that Americans have asked for a principled politician, but don't like it when they actually get one.




John Stossel arguing with Fox News host Megyn Kelley, defending Rand Paul. Megyn Kelley actually appears upset that he could think this way.



And two from The Southern Avenger on what he thinks it really is about Rand Paul that has both sides up in arms.

 

[Joey D]

I won't get into a lengthy text wall thing again because it's pretty useless. I have given you reasons for my opinion but I'll reiterate my points one more time though.

• I believe Paul is ignorant. I have explained why. You may not agree with it, that's fine.
• I think discrimination of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation should be illegal. By discrimination you are denying other rights. We are all human after-all.
• No I don't believe education works at all, if you were raised by bigots you'll be a bigot no matter what you are taught.
• If you can't see the difference between a man in a KKK outfit and and the same man in kakhi's and a polo shirt I'm done trying to explain it.
• No I don't believe a free society should mean I have to deal with bigots and racist, Touring Mars said it better then I could already.

Actually I'll list TM's post here again:

As for Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act, I can't say I'm surprised. While his point may be that 'if private institutions chose to be racist, they run the risk of people not patronising them', he is sending out a very wrong message here. While he is quick to point out that he doesn't want to be associated with the type of people who would discriminate against others on the basis of race (obviously, he is a politician and is clearly not that monumentally stupid), he is basically saying that civilised society must tolerate such abhorrent views because that is the price of freedom, and hence we must all tacitly accept racism as part of our 'free' society. Good luck with that.

I don't think I should have to tolerate racism for the price of freedom. Sometimes for everyone to be free we need to give up some freedoms, I'm OK with that and that's my ideological belief.

 

[Famine]

Walking around dressed as a Klansman is not the same thing as being white, or black, or gay, or smelly. For one thing being a Klansman is a "choice"

Nor did I say or imply they were. Though there are some who would opine that being gay is a choice (and smelly, for that matter).

They are still all spurious reasons for denying service to someone.

I would say there is a significant public benefit that comes from businesses not being able to arbitrarily choose not to provide services to one group or another.

At the expense of freedom of speech and expression - something that should never be traded away.

I understand that libertarians believe that "market forces" will sort everything out for the best. I am very sceptical about this & believe that the outcome would more likely be a more fractured, intolerant & uncivil society.

Joey's on the mark here.

The natural result will be that most places who operate a "blacks only" or "no queers" policy will lose business. I wouldn't be allowed in one and I wouldn't go near the other - and I suspect that almost all right-thinking people would probably agree. However you'd end up with a small group* of businesses that would see an increase in trade as similarly-minded people would frequent them - and they'd have to be niche businesses (save for those who operate physically-obvious-discriminatory policies - you're not likely to get homosexuality scans on your way in to buy liquor). You wouldn't ever find chain stores like WalMart, 24/7, K-Mart operating racist policies because they simply wouldn't make any money from it - they'd lose custom hand-over-fist. But maybe local pubs and mom & pop stores would.

*I base this on voting statistics for nationalist parties in the UK. The largest - the BNP - are overtly racist and naturally attract racists. Some of their vote share comes from "protest" votes against the other major parties, but they nevertheless attracted 1.9% of the vote share - and 1.2% of the potential vote share (all votes/all voters). The natural conclusion of this is that a maximum of one in eighty-one people in the UK approve of racist policies. Transferring this onto business owners, you'd have a maximum of one in eighty-one non-chain, non-franchised, non-national, non-high street stores operating racist policies if the business owner is stupid enough to limit his customer-base, but become more attractive to one in eighty-one of his regulars.

See, many people think that money is evil - or at least the love of money is the root of all evil - but in this instance, and many others, the love of money means you'll take it from anyone, not just people of whom you like the skin colour or genitalia.

 

[FoolKiller]

I believe Paul is ignorant. I have explained why. You may not agree with it, that's fine.

It all comes down to me believing that you are using the term ignorant incorrectly.

If he needed the job or had zero experience working in a campaign, and then whined about how he can't believe people are reacting this way, I would agree with you. But he has been running as a libertarian leaning candidate that doesn't shy away from his principles from day one. If his goal is attempt to win on that platform, then he is ignorant of nothing.

It may be stupid to try to win on that platform, or to run if that is your political philosophy, but that is a different discussion altogether.

I don't think I should have to tolerate racism for the price of freedom. Sometimes for everyone to be free we need to give up some freedoms, I'm OK with that and that's my ideological belief.

I'm not sure how limiting the free speech of people you disagree with creates a free society, but um, OK.

I presented TM with two images of ideologically opposed public marches, each protected by free speech. Would you say that we should ban one of them?



Speaking of discrimination: I wonder where everyone stands on this one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N5RQ20100524

Hooters sued by ex-worker for weight bias

(Reuters) - A former Hooters employee in a Detroit suburb has sued the restaurant chain, alleging she was unable to keep her job after being told to lose weight.

U.S.

Cassandra Smith alleges that Hooters put her on 30-day "weight probation" and advised her to join a gym to improve her looks and fit into her required uniform.

The defendants then disclosed the 20-year-old Smith's status to other workers at a Roseville restaurant, creating an "intensely humiliating, deeply offensive, untenable" work environment, forcing her to resign, according to a lawsuit filed on Monday in Macomb County Circuit Court.

Before the evaluation, Smith had received good reviews and a promotion to shift leader, the complaint said.

According to the complaint, Smith is 5'8" tall and weighs 132.5 pounds (60 kg), down from 145 pounds (66 kg) when she was recruited for employment in 2008.

Hooters' conduct violated a Michigan law barring discrimination on the basis of weight, the complaint said.

"This is a woman working to put herself through school," Richard Bernstein, a lawyer for Smith, said in an interview.

"You have a corporation whose business model creates what I believe is an inappropriate workplace by requiring women to maintain an unhealthy weight," he said.

Hooters' servers wear tank tops and shorts.

According to the complaint, the uniforms come in three sizes: small, extra small and extra extra small.

In a statement, privately owned Hooters of America Inc said it has not asked any employee in Michigan to lose weight, does not enforce any weight requirement, and will defend against the plaintiff's "baseless and self-serving" charges.

The Atlanta-based company said there are more than 17,000 "Hooters Girls" in roughly 450 Hooters restaurants worldwide.

It said it does occasionally "challenge employees about their image," but that this happens "no more than a few dozen times" each year.

Smith seeks to recover lost wages, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages.

The case is Smith v. Hooters of Roseville Inc et al, Circuit Court for Macomb County, Michigan, No. 10-2213-CD.

Everyone knows where my political philosophy would put me on this case, particularly as the lawyer's statement that I highlighted seems telling that he intends to attack the business model itself.

So, I will just go ahead and admit now that I, as a semi-regular Hooters patron (about once a month), also have a selfish motive.



Now, to bring it full circle. If, as has been suggested by some, allowing racial discrimination by private businesses would result in society falling apart into segregated businesses, why does a world where the Hooters business model has been relatively unquestioned, but successful, before now not fall apart into a world where businesses only hire perky young girls that fit appealingly into revealing outfits? Oh, and they have themed dress-up days about once a month.

 

[Joey D]

It all comes down to me believing that you are using the term ignorant incorrectly.

If he needed the job or had zero experience working in a campaign, and then whined about how he can't believe people are reacting this way, I would agree with you. But he has been running as a libertarian leaning candidate that doesn't shy away from his principles from day one. If his goal is attempt to win on that platform, then he is ignorant of nothing.

It may be stupid to try to win on that platform, or to run if that is your political philosophy, but that is a different discussion altogether.

That's fine, you think I'm using the term incorrectly. It's ignorant to think you can win based on making statements like that because you are going to get eaten alive by your opponent and some of the media. That has been my point all along.

I feel he's ignorant of the way the system works and the way the public will view things.

I presented TM with two images of ideologically opposed public marches, each protected by free speech. Would you say that we should ban one of them?

As long as the KKK rallies aren't threatening anyone, causing disruption, or carrying out anything to break the law then no they shouldn't be banned under the way the laws currently are. However, I would like to see that sort of stuff made illegal.

A homosexual rally has zero negative connotations attached to it. They aren't promoting genocide.

 

[Omnis]

That's fine, you think I'm using the term incorrectly. It's ignorant to think you can win based on making statements like that because you are going to get eaten alive by your opponent and some of the media. That has been my point all along.

I feel he's ignorant of the way the system works and the way the public will view things.

Well that just shows how poor the discussion has been in the last decade. He's not ignorant of the way the system works or the way the public will view things. He just happens to have views that haven't been discussed in the mainstream since Barry Goldwater. As long as his opponent doesn't insinuate that voting for Rand Paul means you'll die in a nuclear explosion, Rand should be fine.

I don't think I should have to tolerate racism for the price of freedom. Sometimes for everyone to be free we need to give up some freedoms, I'm OK with that and that's my ideological belief.

Protecting and respecting freedom and property has nothing to do with tolerating racism. Just like we have a responsibility to defend freedom, we also have a social responsibility to eschew and eliminate racism (and I would argue collectivism as a whole-- whoa, look what I did there). It would be so easy to act on our own to fight racism. Black leaders have already done the hard part by decoupling racism from the state. As has been said before, a store owner would be boycotted and picketed out of business in ten seconds if people acted on their moral, social responsibilities to stop the proliferation racism. Banks that loan the establishment money can be boycotted, and any other suppliers can be boycotted. You'd be amazed at what the power of free individuals can achieve. You fight freedom with freedom; you don't take it away.

Going the path of government is slow and inefficient and is not helpful towards achieving this end when compared to the means we have as individual actors. Some of the parts of the civil rights act are an anachronism in this respect.

But it doesn't even matter because touching that act is a fairy-tale. It will never happen. Not any time soon, anyway. There are far more important things to tend to right now. It's a really dumb and insignificant thing to be concerned about right now.

Now if we could please get back to the subject of congressional races it would be nice.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's fine, you think I'm using the term incorrectly. It's ignorant to think you can win based on making statements like that because you are going to get eaten alive by your opponent and some of the media. That has been my point all along.

I feel he's ignorant of the way the system works and the way the public will view things.

This points it out for me nicely.

First paragraph: I am fine with that statement. It is likely ignorant to think you can win with that political philosophy. Most people would agree with you, even if he did win the primary in a landslide after his opponent spent months pointing that fact out. If he does win then it will likely mean there has been a change in the mindset of the voters, even if it is only temporarily caused by a grassroots movement.

The second paragraph (or sentence) implies that he doesn't know how the system works or what reaction to his answers would be, which I see tons of evidence saying the opposite.

Basically, do you think he answered that question thinking his response would be popular and make him into some kind of political hero, or that it would have zero negative effect?

However, I would like to see that sort of stuff made illegal.

Why? They are openly voicing their opinion. You would seriously like to see free speech made illegal when it is an opinion you find abhorrent? Do you realize the long-term implications of that kind of precedent? It could limit socially unpopular political speech because the opinions of someone, like say libertarians, could be seen as abhorrent by social progressives.

A homosexual rally has zero negative connotations attached to it.

Well, I did have to filter through a few borderline AUP violating images. Let's just say that some will embrace the negative stereotypes in order to mock those who don't understand them.

 

[Keef]

[*]I think discrimination of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation should be illegal. By discrimination you are denying other rights. We are all human after-all.

Being able to enter a restaurant is not a right, Joey, it is a privilege given to you by that property's owner. That fact is proven by the owner's right to deny everyone entry at night when the doors are locked, and in fact, it then becomes illegal for you to enter his private property at all. That owner should have the right to deny you the privilege to enter his private property for whatever reason he wishes. A restaurant is no more a "public accommodation" than my house is when my front door is unlocked. Do you think that if I stood in front of my house personally inviting people into it that I should not be allowed to say "except you" to the DMX-lookin' fool that lives down the street?

[*]No I don't believe education works at all, if you were raised by bigots you'll be a bigot no matter what you are taught.

Both my parents are vehemently racist, but I don't support institutionalized racism in the slightest.

[*]If you can't see the difference between a man in a KKK outfit and and the same man in kakhi's and a polo shirt I'm done trying to explain it.

You're wrong, we definitely can see the difference. One is a KKK member wearing a goofy bed sheet, and the other is a KKK member wearing khakis and possibly a new Lacoste. After all, what's the sense in maiming somebody if you're not at least going to take their wallet? He could also use the money for a bottle of soda down at Tyrone Biggums' Corner Bistro, and as long as he leaves the business attire at home he'll be able to use his newfound wealth without confrontation, according to your rules.

[*]No I don't believe a free society should mean I have to deal with bigots and racist, Touring Mars said it better then I could already.

The idea of gaining "freedom" and equality by giving up freedoms that allow inequality is Communism's view on personal rights.

I apologize for repeatedly bringing up the race example, but it's easy and polarizing. For the record, I'm not going to say that I wouldn't do business at a whites-only establishment. If they guy makes a good burger he makes a good burger, know what I mean. So, private property rights, then...

 

[Joel]

Like I've said earlier, I completely agree with Paul on this issue. I think a business owner should be able to block anyone from entering his or her store for any reason whatsoever. I mentioned that I might be taking Canada's social values for granted, but that doesn't change my opinion.


It's private property. Like Keef's example with the house, I can deny anyone entry to my house, which is private property, but because I sell burgers and fries I have to admit everyone to my restaurant? (hint hint, private property)

I just don't see the middle step where you have a right to deny someone's entry in to your house, but when you sell discount sunglasses you lose that right.

 

[livemusic]

Yeah, it's like those night clubs who select the people who can enter it, and block the entrance for those they don't think fit its style. Private property.

 

[Biggles]

Yeah, it's like those night clubs who select the people who can enter it, and block the entrance for those they don't think fit its style. Private property.

Yeah, you're right, because the night-club bouncer is a perfect model for a civil society

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, on my way home yesterday some guy passed me on the interstate and honked at me, then gave me a thumbs up and a wave. I have a Rand Paul yards sign in my back window. Unless he is a huge VW fan driving a Jeep Cherokee, I am guessing that was the reason for the thumbs up.

And to think that after this latest kerfuffle I feared that my car might wind up being part of one of those stories we hear every election about someone's car being vandalized due to their political bumper sticker.

Yeah, you're right, because the night-club bouncer is a perfect model for a civil society

Yes, roll your eyes at the guy preventing under age patrons from entering and stopping fights, who also has to limit the number of people into the club in order to meet the fire codes so that supposedly no one dies if a fire breaks out. Those guys are just horrible.

 

[Biggles]

And there I was naively commenting on their role to:

block the entrance for those they don't think fit its style.

💡 Thanks Foolkiller, for drawing attention to their valuable role in enforcing public safety regulations. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

And there I was naively commenting on their role to:

Yep, when you have to limit the number of people going in you should be able to make sure it isn't a club full of fatties while you are at it.

💡 Thanks Foolkiller, for drawing attention to their valuable role in enforcing public safety regulations. 👍

His primary job is as hired security. That's what he does. That sounds as if you think you are catching me on something, but the fact is that I only disagree with one of the three things I mentioned.



But on topic with how anti-discrimination laws go too far:

Women only gym forced to allow men

Gay softball league sued for not allowing bisexual players.

Restaurant sued for refusing to serve Neo-Nazis

 

[Biggles]

That sounds as if you think you are catching me on something

You gotta be kidding me. I know that's never gonna happen ...

 

[Joel]

Women only gym forced to allow men

Gay softball league sued for not allowing bisexual players.

Restaurant sued for refusing to serve Neo-Nazis

I just don't understand the middle step here. It's different if something receives public funding, but these examples are akin to the government telling school children they have to allow girls into their "No Girls Allowed" club.

 

[DK]

Restaurant sued for refusing to serve Neo-Nazis

I'd certainly ban them from my business, they're scumbags and honestly if I had my way I wouldn't even let them have kids, seeing as they'll pass their screwed up ideologies onto their kids.

 

[Touring Mars]

Free speech is free speech for all, not just those you agree with.

The right to free speech is a cornerstone of civilised society, but it has it's limits, and the right to free speech does not exist in a vacuum. The right to free speech must be considered in relation to the law and the rights of others. While people may be free to say whatever they want, the right to free speech does not give someone freedom from responsibility for what they say. The right to free speech always comes with the proviso that you take responsibility for your words i.e. if you exercise your right to free speech to threaten murder, you will quickly find yourself under arrest, and rightly so.

The difference between a KKK rally and a gay rights rally is not in the fact that they both have the right to speak, but in the content of their message and taking responsibility for the consequences of their words. While the KKK spout hatred and intolerance and incite violence and intimidation against their opponents, the gay rights rally doesn't. Solely in terms of the right to free speech, there may be no difference between the two rallies... but viewed with regard to the wider picture, there is a big qualitative difference between one rally and the other - it isn't simply about the right to free speech.

Here in the UK, if you exercise your right to free speech and protest with placards saying "Kill Americans"; "Bomb New York!" or "Slaughter the infidels!", you will probably be arrested and/or subsequently jailed (as was the case here). Our laws may allow these protests to occur, but they also ensure that people take responsibility for what they say and therefore shouldn't expect to say whatever they want without any repercussions.

As for anti-discrimination laws going to far, I reckon a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against certain actions i.e. openly espousing racist views or support for a racist organisation, but not allowed to discriminate against individuals on the basis of something that is beyond their control i.e. their race or sexuality. Of the three examples you cite, I reckon the first two are not bad things, but the latter is an example of where the action/behaviour of a person or group could be used as legitimate grounds to refuse service.

 

[Omnis]

I'm not sure that all white power rallies today have signs and stuff that say Kill N-words or Exterminate The Jews. That's threatening, so they mostly just carry white power signs and all do sieg heil salutes and all that nonsense. All they do is hype their worldview, just like the gay parades with dudes grabbing all over each other and dry humping.

 

[Famine]

As for anti-discrimination laws going to far, I reckon a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against certain actions i.e. openly espousing racist views or support for a racist organisation, but not allowed to discriminate against individuals on the basis of something that is beyond their control i.e. their race or sexuality.

We'd have to establish that sexuality isn't a choice in all cases. We'd also have to establish that "acting gay" (excessive campness, snogging your same-sex-partner) isn't an offensive action. Michael Jackson showed that, at least as far as external, visible signs go, race is merely skin deep and changeable. Gender is too (as an acquaintance found out at the last second).

I don't think it's as simple as being allowed to discriminate on the grounds of what someone does as opposed to what they are. Either discrimination at the individual's fiat is allowed or it is not - and the latter does not respect freedom of speech.

 

[Biggles]

The point with regard to the Nazis or the KKK is the threat & intimidation is not just based on what they say, but what they have done. I would say that the tens of millions of people killed as a result of Nazi ideology give society a legitimate right to restrict what Neo-Nazis are able to say.

 

[Famine]

The point with regard to the Nazis or the KKK is the threat & intimidation is not just based on what they say, but what they have done.

So would American businesses be entitled to refuse service to Japanese people - because of Pearl Harbor? Or to Brits because of the American War of Independence - I'm sure someone in my family tree killed an American?

After all, it's not what we say, but what we have done...

 

[Touring Mars]

The point with regard to the Nazis or the KKK is the threat & intimidation is not just based on what they say, but what they have done.

I don't think that is the reason why people are intimidated by neo-Nazis - it is more about what they are doing and what they advocate as opposed to what their predecessors may have done. Having a sign up saying "No fascists" would be pointless - but having a policy of refusing service to people who are behaving in a racially intolerant manner to other customers is fine, IMO - not least because such behaviour may be illegal (i.e. harassment, breach of the peace etc.), up to and including clearly showing your support for a fascist organisation, such as the KKK or the BNP, or a banned terrorist organisation.

 

[FoolKiller]

The right to free speech is a cornerstone of civilised society, but it has it's limits, and the right to free speech does not exist in a vacuum. The right to free speech must be considered in relation to the law and the rights of others. While people may be free to say whatever they want, the right to free speech does not give someone freedom from responsibility for what they say. The right to free speech always comes with the proviso that you take responsibility for your words i.e. if you exercise your right to free speech to threaten murder, you will quickly find yourself under arrest, and rightly so.

Correct, it cannot be used to incite acts that will directly result in harm to others.

The difference between a KKK rally and a gay rights rally is not in the fact that they both have the right to speak, but in the content of their message and taking responsibility for the consequences of their words. While the KKK spout hatred and intolerance and incite violence and intimidation against their opponents, the gay rights rally doesn't. Solely in terms of the right to free speech, there may be no difference between the two rallies... but viewed with regard to the wider picture, there is a big qualitative difference between one rally and the other - it isn't simply about the right to free speech.

Your false assumption here is that every KKK rally is about inciting violence and intimidation. Rare is the lynching style rally these days. It is more common to see a rally where an affirmative action or similar case has come up, or in favor of or opposition to political candidates.

The image I posted was from a rally at Ole Miss, where the university banned a song from being played during sporting events. They were protesting the university's decision.
http://newsone.com/entertainment/sp...staff/kkk-to-hold-rally-before-ole-miss-game/

No incitement of any form, unless "The South will rise again," is to be considered treason.

Here in the UK, if you exercise your right to free speech and protest with placards saying "Kill Americans"; "Bomb New York!" or "Slaughter the infidels!", you will probably be arrested and/or subsequently jailed (as was the case here). Our laws may allow these protests to occur, but they also ensure that people take responsibility for what they say and therefore shouldn't expect to say whatever they want without any repercussions.

True, but general racist comments should not have repercussions. Having a "Whites Only" sign on your business' door should not be illegal as it creates no harm. Questioning if there should be research in to if there are physiological differences between men and women that might be the cause of the disparity of how many enter fields like science and math should not cost you your job, especially if you are head of a university.

As for anti-discrimination laws going to far, I reckon a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against certain actions i.e. openly espousing racist views or support for a racist organisation, but not allowed to discriminate against individuals on the basis of something that is beyond their control i.e. their race or sexuality.

So, our anti-discrimination laws should be altered to remove creed from the language? What if you believe Christians to all be hateful fundamentalists? Can you throw out the guy with a crucifix on his necklace?

Of the three examples you cite, I reckon the first two are not bad things, but the latter is an example of where the action/behaviour of a person or group could be used as legitimate grounds to refuse service.

You don't see a problem with forcing an all-women gym to accept men? Are you aware of why those gyms exist? Their entire business model, and thus their success, is built around sexual discrimination in order to create a more enjoyable atmosphere for their clientele.

Similarly, should a, ahem, "gentleman's club" be forced to allow men to be hired as performers?

Better yet, should BET (Black Entertainment Television) be forced to hire white hosts? Or should the Miss Black America pageant be forced to accept white women?

The point with regard to the Nazis or the KKK is the threat & intimidation is not just based on what they say, but what they have done. I would say that the tens of millions of people killed as a result of Nazi ideology give society a legitimate right to restrict what Neo-Nazis are able to say.

Guilt, and discrimination, by association?

 

[Biggles]

I don't think that is the reason why people are intimidated by neo-Nazis - it is more about what they are doing and what they advocate as opposed to what their predecessors may have done.

It is the combination of both that makes it an issue.

Guilt, and discrimination, by association?

So would American businesses be entitled to refuse service to Japanese people - because of Pearl Harbor? Or to Brits because of the American War of Independence...

If you're part of a group that has appalling historical record & you're advocating the same things - yes. I would say there are examples where people are entitled to be protected from intimidation by hateful speech, especially where there is a history of violence associated with that hateful speech. I have never heard of Japanese or Brits parading around the streets in the US advocating killing Americans - it's a totally spurious "Straw Man" scenario.