Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:13 AM) Come on now Jenks. If there's a crazy religion that thinks interracial marriage is a sin, should they be allowed to refuse service to that interracial couple? No because of the 14th (and because it's morally wrong). Discrimination is absolutely and totally wrong. I can't believe you are supporting this point. The issue about the Second is a different one and is subject to its own problems. I think everyone agrees that the Second is subject to certain reasonable restrictions. What those reasonable restrictions are is its own argument... No no, let me be clear here: I don't find that to be a legitimate reason to restrict a right of public accommodation (even assuming that sexuality is a protected class) under existing laws. What i've said is that the logic and legal arguments behind the two are the same - you need a legitimate reason to curb or restrict that right. I've called Balta a hypocrite because he'd gladly infringe upon someone's right to carry a weapon over the right to publicly accommodate someone. That's him simply valuing what he agrees with over what he doesn't agree with, which is no different than what the legislators in Kansas and other states are doing (they think their religious freedom right trumps the right of public accommodation/anti-discrimination). The fact that the two deal with a person and an object or one is more dangerous is irrelevant. And yes, the 2nd amendment arguments are obviously more complex, but "guns are dangerous" as a legitimate reason has, thus far, been applied only in limited situations, usually in government or quasi-government areas. If that reason had been accepted concealed carry in public wouldn't exist.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:57 AM) ???? Guns are an object, sexual preference is not. If a gay person wants to go to store X, they cant simply "leave their gay at home". Sorry this is stupid and we both know it. Go reread my posts because you've clearly glossed over me saying about 10 times that factually they are not comparable and there is a clear distinction between the two, but under the law the analysis and determination of whether rights have been infringed are the same.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:56 AM) The problem is that there is no logic behind not wanting to serve a gay person. There is absolutely logic behind not wanting people with guns in your store. Guns present a risk. Thats why when you go to court, there is a metal detector and no one can bring in a gun. Thats why when you fly on a plane, etc. Are there gay detectors? Do we fear that gay people on a plane is dangerous? Gay people in court? So lets stop with this fallacy that somehow its comparable. Religious objection is the logic, whether you agree or disagree with it. And it's absolutely comparable under the law. How do you, of all people, not see that?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:45 AM) You're still treating objects as equivalent to people. No, i'm treating rights equally. Something you obviously disagree with.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:32 AM) Nothing more needs to be said. But this argument has been rejected by the courts in the concealed carry arguments. I mean, this is obviously where the "no guns" sign cases are going to go and be decided, but we're not there yet as far as I know. Again, i'm not equating the two. I'm equating the logic behind it. Balta still fears guns and doesn't want them in his place. A dude from Kansas fears or finds objectionable gay people and doesn't want them in his place. You can draw all the real-world distinctions you like, but under the law the hurdle of legitimacy is the same. And as much as you'd like to consider a gun as an object no different from a shirt or shoes, it isn't the same.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) In your hypothetical, Balta wants to ban an inanimate object from the premises. Human beings are not inanimate objects; a gun owner can leave their gun in the car/at home, a black person can't leave their black at home and their black isn't literally a deadly weapon on top of that. Places can discriminate based on dress code, and nobody really cares. Places can not allow pets, they could not allow people carrying skateboards or bring their bicycle in or any number of different objects. Nobody really gives a s*** because these things are not in any way equivalent to banning someone because of an innate trait. Carrying a certain object with you wherever you go is not like being gay or being black or being Jewish. You can just leave the damn thing at home. All well and good and I don't disagree, but you actually have an express, constitutional right to bear arms. And you now have various state and federal laws that allow you to carry those guns in public. So the decision to restrict that right (just like your legal right to enter a store without discrimination for certain classes) has to come with some kind of legitimate reason. Banning gay people because of religious objections is, IMO and yours, not legitimate. Same with guns and a fear of being shot. The distinction you make doesn't really matter. "It's easy to remove the objection" isn't really the question. Perhaps from a realistic stand point it is, but i'm arguing from a legal, constitutional one.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 09:53 AM) Are you incapable of distinguishing between a physical object and an innate trait of someone? edit: jenks' arguments remind me of libertarian economist Bryan Caplan's argument that women really were more free in the Gilded Age than they are now. both arguments say much more about how limited this conception of freedom is than anything else. edit2: why does the reason not matter "in 2014"? If it's because racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. are so rare (lol) that we wouldn't have to worry about it, then doesn't that mean public accommodations law isn't really hurting anyone? As to your edit 2, yes, i think progress society has made makes some of these laws unnecessary, or at least less necessary than before. Affirmative action laws are a good example. SCOTUS specifically said we hope in 25 years we won't need this anymore. Are you saying we should never change laws over time and we should accept them always and forever?

I guess I'll throw this in here. We're trying to create and bottle a star for potential energy. Craziness: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03...currentPage=all

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 09:53 AM) Are you incapable of distinguishing between a physical object and an innate trait of someone? The logic behind finding the "behavior" objectionable (and wanting to ban that behavior from entering your store) is the exact same, and that's what i'm getting at. To infringe on a right in the law you have to have a legitimate reason for doing so. Fear of being shot with a gun simply by having someone carrying a gun has been repeatedly rejected (except in certain situations). It's not a complicated argument.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 09:36 AM) Then I am missing your point. People with guns shoot and kill people. Being concerned about someone with a gun seems more rational than being concerned about who someone may be having sex with. Which would you fear more, having a pissed off gay guy in front of you or a pissed off guy with a gun? Obviously bringing a gun into a situation is inherently more dangerous than just some random gay guy walking into a store. But there's no expectation in either situation that some objectionable behavior will occur. It's irrational to assume so, which is why I think Balta banning someone with a gun from his store because he's afraid to get shot is just as dumb as a Bible thumper in Kansas worried that he'll be tainted or something from a gay guy entering his store. I could buy the argument that mixing alcohol and bars (known to produce fights and killings already) would be a good and legitimate reason to ban guns. But a typical store? No. However, as i've said before, I think Balta should absolutely have the right to bar anyone from his store. And business of Kansas owners should be able to do the same. The reason behind it - fear, religious objection, etc. - in 2014, really shouldn't matter. I think the Kansas law is dumb, but I also think a law going the other way - that business owners HAVE to serve people - is equally dumb.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 06:29 AM) I know, could you imagine? I'm teaching a class, I have to fail a person, they get angry, and that person winds up carrying gay with them? Oh my god how scary would that be? To have someone you have to deal with being irresponsible with their gay? I mean, why couldn't they have just left their gay at home? Or, god forbid, black. Could you imagine how scary it would be to have someone being irresponsibly with their black? Lol, thanks for proving my point about your irrational fear.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 09:32 PM) Opening a business is a choice. And it's subject to not discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Aside from religion, none of those are choices. This is partly true. It depends on the state and the type of business you're talking about.

Hey, at least they keep playing. Now just win the big ten tourney and we're in!

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 09:11 PM) You skate over this like it's not an important distinction. It was already said -- bringing a gun into a store = choice. Sexual orientation = not a choice. Shopping in general is a choice. Do you have a constitutional right to be able to go into private businesses? And I'm not discounting the distinction here. I just think it's a distinction without a difference when you're talking about the logic behind it. If you're infringing on a constitutional right, you're infringing on a constitutional right.

This cracked me up: http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/44189

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 08:17 PM) You can say that because you'll have essentially zero personal negative impact. Except when I go to Balta's store!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) I'm waiting for you to give me an example that does not explicitly have the potential to cause me harm. If 2 gay people enter a room and want to purchase something my risk of death is not abnormally increased, if a person walks in with a gun that is fundamentally the case, my life and everyone else in the room, including the person carrying is at elevated risk. A more comparable example would be a creationist or something like that, although again that still has the problem of being a clear personal decision. And, as a person who wants to be a geology professor, that's one I fully expect I have occur. Harm has nothing to do with it. It's your belief, end of story. And really, your fear of being harmed by a gun entering your business is about as ludicrous as a gay guy raping someone in a shower full of straight men. This is why it's better to let everyone be a racist/homophobic/gun-hating prick. Everyone will be hated equally and the world can move on.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 05:08 PM) Of course the problem is I could ask them to leave the weapon outside, so it doesn't exactly work. I also am struggling to figure out how two men kissing will kill me. On the latter basis, probably not. If the person was willing to unload it or carrying a toy of some sort, fine. As SS said, I dunno that that's true. And I guarantee that's the next step in this debate - is it constitutional to bar someone entry into a business for doing something that's constitutionally protected. But really, you're a hypocrite. You don't agree with something that someone does/is, and you're fine discriminating against them. When the "something" is what you support, it's terrible. When it's not, it's acceptable. I assume you support the no gun sign provisions in the various concealed carry laws - how is that any different from what Kansas and other states are trying to do here?

But everyone hates the gays!

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) Being a gun owner is a choice. It's not comparible. It's still something that Balta is absolutely 100% against. I'm wondering if he feels he needs to shut up and deal with it or if he'd be against such a customer entering his business.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) Move all the military money/jobs to building roads and schools. Or how about we give the money back to the people that gave it up in the first place?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) See, that's part of the problem. It's actually hard to believe that 30 states allow people to be fired or denied housing solely because they're gay, but that's the law. I'm curious, what if you owned a business and a customer came in with a handgun strapped to their body? Would you be ok serving them despite your fear/dislike of guns?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) LOL, you're kidding right? Um, no? I didn't know what the law is. Looking it up on wiki, it says there is a "Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for public employees only based on an executive order by Governor Kathleen Sibelius in 2007."

I'll be watching. I loved season 1.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 10:28 AM) My favorite and only enjoyable part of business travel is when I've flown first / business (which is rare and our companies policy is only for flights over like 5 hours, which will happen on ocassions from the west to east coast). I really don't understand how an individual could pay a full first / business fare though (or logically justify the cost). Only way I'm ever doing it on my own dime is with my points. And that doesn't mean I enjoy flying, its just a lot less tiresome of an experience because you have space and service and somewhat edible food. I got upgraded to first class once on a flight back from Atlanta. It was amazing. Sucked it only lasted like 2 hours.